ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1844/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Capacity of certain Member States to absorb structural aid

In a speech at a colloquy held at the European Parliament in Strasbourg during a recent part-session, the President of the EU Court of Auditors stated that it has become clear from experience that a Member State can only absorb structural aid up to a maximum of 5% of GDP. This would apply particularly to structural aid to southern Europe.

In the Community's south, it has not been possible to implement concrete projects for which structural aid was granted last year to the sum of ECU 23 000 bn, owing to the lack of absorption capacities in the Member States concerned, whose authorities are unable to provide a positive response.

In view of the seriousness of this situation, which implies an inability to undertake the development for which the structural aid in question is intended, can the Commission state whether it confirms the statements made by the above-mentioned EU economic authority, and provide any comments and possible solutions?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Matthies on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

The Commission would emphasize that no Member State has received Structural Fund resources exceeding the threshold of 5% of GDP in the current programming period (1994-99). Among the chief recipients, Community structural assistance averages 3.7% of GDP in Greece, 2.6% in Ireland and 4% in Portugal, compared with 1.8% in Spain.

The Commission believes that the sum of ECU 23 billion to which the Honourable Member refers might be the unexpended balance of all Structural Fund commitments ever made, taking all Member States, objectives and programming periods together. It is not an illustration of any fundamental absorption problem.

The Commission's annual reports on the Structural Funds describe in detail the distribution and use of the Community resources mobilized for structural purposes, stating the rate of their absorption by year, objective and Member State.

With regard to Objective 1 regions, and particularly those of the southern Member States, the Commission would like to point out that all but Italy, where execution of the Community support framework fell back in 1994 and 1995, increased their use of the funds allocated to them in 1994 and 1995. This was the case in Greece, Spain and Portugal, which so far seem to be encountering no absorption difficulties.

The Commission feels that the Honourable Member's fears are groundless at present.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1657/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Council (24 June 1996)

Subject: The cold-blooded murder of a Greek Cypriot National Guard by the Turkish forces of occupation

On the morning of 3 June 1996 Turkish soldiers shot and cold-bloodedly killed a 19 year-old Greek Cypriot National Guard, Stelios Panayis Kallis. This killing took place in no man's land which is under the control of the UN's peace force in Cyprus and the Greek National Guard had gone there unarmed. It should be borne in mind that Stelios Panayis Kallis is the seventh person to have been killed in this way. This incident provides further proof of the aggressive attitude of the Turkish army of occupation and the danger it poses for the people of Cyprus.

Will the Council say whether it intends to raise this matter with the Turkish authorities at the next meeting of the EU-Turkey Association Council and to what extent it intends actively to support the proposal for the demilitarization of Cyprus which would both contribute to a solution to the problem of Cyprus and prevent incidents of this kind occurring in future?

Joint Reply to Written Questions E-1657/96 and E-1712/96 (19 November 1996)

1. The Council deplores the mortal wounding in the buffer zone of Stelios Panayis Kallis, a member of the Greek Cypriot National Guard, as well as the disproportionate use of force by the security forces in the north of Cyprus in response to unauthorized entry into the buffer zone.

2. The Council attaches the greatest importance to respect for human life and is resolute in condemning violence in whatever context.

3. The recent events have again highlighted the urgent need to intensify efforts to promote a comprehensive political settlement in Cyprus, under the aegis of the United Nations. The European Union reiterates its full support for the work of the Secretary-General and his special representative in this regard.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2094/96 by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Road haulage

A number of Danish road hauliers have contacted us anonymously in the hope that we might be able to help them.

The situation in the road haulage sector in the EU is one of complete lawlessness, in which every man is for himself. The resulting distortions of competition are forcing Danish hauliers and drivers to drive unlawfully, the alternative being to be out of work.

What will the Commission do to ensure that the provisions on driving and rest periods are complied with?

On 25 July 1995, in its answer to my question no. E-1417/95 ((OJ C 270, 16.10.1995, p. 25. )), the Commission agreed that problems do exist.

Will it, in line with the decision taken at the Council meeting of 19 and 20 June 1995, submit a revised proposal concerning the Council Directive on recording equipment in road transport?

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

The Commission agrees that compliance with Community rules on driving time and rest periods for drivers should be improved and considers that this could be facilitated if national control systems were upgraded and made more homogeneous throughout the Community. In pursuit of that purpose, the Commission met with national experts of the Member States in October 1995 and, as a follow-up to that meeting, initiatives are under way with the aim of achieving more uniform implementation and interpretation of the social rules between and within Member States.

The Commission proposal to which the Honourable Member makes reference ((OJ C 243, 31.8.1994. )), as amended after the first reading of the Parliament ((OJ C 25, 31.1.1996. )), provides for the introduction of a new generation of tachographs. The main element is the introduction of drivers' smart cards on which the essential data for the enforcement of the drivers hours' Regulation 3820/85 ((OJ L 370, 31.12.1985. )) will be stored.

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that improvement of the equipment is urgently needed and will continue to press the Council for an early adoption of a common position.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2239/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Pollution in the Gulf of Thailand

Is the Commission aware of the level of heavy metal pollution in the Gulf of Thailand and is it aware of the source of this pollution? How much fish product is imported into the EU from this region? Is it used for human consumption as well as pet food?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)

The Commission has no official information regarding the level of pollution in the gulf of Thailand.

The import figures from the four countries bordering the gulf of Thailand are shown in the table below. However, since all these countries save Cambodia have fishing grounds outside the gulf, no estimate can be made of the share of imports originating in the gulf and the final use of these products.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1785/96 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Unnecessary use of the pharmaceutical Premarin

The pharmaceutical Premarin is used to replace oestrogens in women during the menopause. Its manufacturing process causes severe distress to animals and is environmentally polluting. Premarin is nevertheless the most commonly prescribed pharmaceutical for counteracting unwanted side-effects of the menopause. Worldwide, 44 301 000 units of Premarin were sold last year. The prescription guidelines for this pharmaceutical are non-restrictive. The excessive use of Premarin is unacceptable, firstly because superfluous use of any pharmaceutical is undesirable from a health point of view, and secondly because the production of Premarin is particularly damaging to nature and the environment.

1. Can the Commission confirm that the prescribing of Premarin is not confined to restrictive indications?

2. What action will the Commission take to counteract the excessive use of pharmaceuticals in general and of Premarin in particular?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1784/96 and E-1785/96 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

Premarin is a pharmaceutical product which contains natural conjugated oestrogen and is authorised in many Member States as an oestrogen replacement therapy for menopausal and post menopausal women.

The Commission has no information on the market share of Premarin.

The Commission does not have any information to indicate that there are farms within the Community where urine is collected from pregnant mares to produce hormones.

The method of production of Premarin is set out in the application dossier which is submitted to the authorities of the Member States when an application for marketing authorisation is requested and is reviewed in order to ensure that medicinal products meet the criteria of quality, safety and efficacy. The farming methods used are not included in the dossier for marketing authorisation for human use medicinal products.

The labelling provisions for pharmaceuticals have been designed to provide information to patients so as to ensure the correct use of the product rather than to give any reference to the manufacturing process by which the product was obtained. These provisions have been drawn up in consultation with consumer groups, health care professional groups and experts from the Member States.

The indications for which Premarin may be prescribed are set out at the time a marketing authorisation is granted. These have been determined by each Member State, since this product has been authorised nationally. The rational use of medicinal products, including the supervision of the prescription of medicines and their use within the approved indications, is ensured by the Member States especially through the pharmacovigilance procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Report on the implementation of Directive 79/409

In 1993 the Commission submitted its second report on the implementation of Directive 79/409 ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )).

Article 12 (2) provides that the Commission shall publish such a report every three years. This means that at the end of 1996 the Commission should publish its third report on the implementation of the Directive.

Will the Commission say whether it has already drawn up a draft of its third report which it could make available to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

The composite report which will be prepared by the Commission will be based on the reports of the Member States on the implementation of national provisions in the period 1993-1995.

The Commission will draft its report as soon as these reports are available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2473/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: Contravention of WTO rules by Indonesia

It is public knowledge that the financing and production conditions relating to the 'Timor' motorcar, which is manufactured in South Korea for the Indonesian market, contravene the World Trade Organization's rules and seriously affect the conditions under which European companies are required to compete in this sector of the Asian market. In view of these facts, what representations has the Commission made (or is it intending to make) to the WTO with a view to having an inquiry carried out?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (21 October 1996)

The Commission takes the view that the incentives provided by Indonesia to certain domestic companies under their national car programme are in contradiction with a number of World trade organization (WTO) provisions and are detrimental to the Community interests.

The Commission has raised the issue with the Indonesian authorities on several occasions, and notably at the highest political level during the meeting between the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of the trade policy and President Soeharto on 23 April 1996. Following these interventions, the Commission held informal consultations with Indonesia in July. These talks ended without agreement, and on 3 October 1996, immediately after the customs clearance of the first commercial batch of vehicles from Korea to be imported under discriminatory preferential conditions, the Community proceeded to request the opening of formal WTO consultations.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2193/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: BSE culling incinverators

Is the Commission aware of any danger to human or livestock health, or to the immediate environment surrounding the site of a BSE culling incinerator, through the air or water courses, by coming into contact with persons or animals regularly exposed to the incinerator fumes or waste, or by disposing of the incinerated material by landfill dumping?

Is the Commission aware of any contention within the scientific community regarding the safety of the incineration of BSE-infected material?

What emissions could be expected from an incinerator carrying out this function?

Have any studies been made by the Commission or by other organizations known to the Commission on the effects of BSE incineration and subsequent handling and dumping of the incinerated material;

- on nearby urban areas, in particular the health of humans and animals and the safety of local water tables,

- on nearby rural areas, in particular the health of humans and animals, and the safety of agricultural produce,

- on those working at a BSE incinerator,

- on water tables,

- on the food chain?

Have any studies been made by the Commission or by other organizations known to the Commission on the likely smell of burning carcasses infected with BSE?

Will the Commission supply the texts of any such relevant studies?

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

The Commission has no firm information on the risk, or absence of risk, from the operations mentioned. However, incineration involves heating to over 800°C, usually in burners with a second stage heater. The temperatures are known to denature protein completely. Survival of any infective agent is therefore considered unlikely.

There is no reason why the smell of carcasses affected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy should be different from that produced by the incineration of other animal material.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2334/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Pornographic television

Is the Commission aware that hard core pornographic films are being transmitted from Holland into the UK by the Eurotica channel?

What moves will the Commission take to tackle this problem in the light of the EU Directive on television broadcasting which states in Article 22 that programmes 'do not involve pornography'?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (20 September 1996)

The question of pornography on television, as raised by the Honourable Member, is effectively covered by Article 22 of Directive 89/552 ((Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ L 298, 17.10.1989). )), which stipulates that Member States must take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands have taken the necessary national measures to transpose this provision into national law.

The Commission will check with the national authorities that the Eurotica channel fully complies with the regulatory framework that applies to it.

The Directive also specifies that Member States may suspend retransmission of television broadcasts on their territory if the rules regarding the protection of minors are repeatedly and manifestly infringed. A specific procedure is provided in Article 2(2), which is initiated when the Member State concerned notifies its intention to suspend the retransmission of the broadcasts. It is the Commission's responsibility to make sure that the measures taken to this end are compatible with Community law. However, it falls to the Member States to assess the question of moral standards and the way in which these are integrated into national systems.

To date, the Commission has not received any notification from the United Kingdom on this point.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2302/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Interservice group on disability

In view of DG V's recent statement and commitment to strengthening the Interservice Group on Disability, can the Commission state when the last Interservice Group met, what was discussed and when the next Interservice Group will meet and what will be discussed?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)

The last meeting of the interservice group dealing with the integration of disabled people was on 29 November 1995. It examined the activities of various directorates-general which have an impact on disabled people, the draft interim evaluation report on Helios II, the possibility of setting up a European advisory council of disabled people, sectorial responsibilities in the post-Helios II situation, a draft code of good practice on the employment of people with disabilities in the Commission and the mutual recognition of parking cards for disabled people.

The next meeting of the interservice group in October 1996 will examine, inter alia, the actions to be undertaken in the light of the Commission's communication on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities ((COM(96) 406. )) , adopted on 30 July 1996, and also review ways of strengthening actions in this field in all relevant Commission policies and actions.

In the intervening period frequent bilateral contacts have taken place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2658/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Europol and paedophiles

Does the Commission not feel Europol should be used to keep lists of convicted paedophiles available to authorities in all Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1996)

The Council is about to extend the mandate of the Europol drug unit to include the fight against trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. It should also shortly be adopting a programme including a review of the advisability and feasibility of a centralized exchange of information on missing children and persons convicted of paedophilia (Stop programme). The creation of such European data banks and in particular, the one suggested by the Honourable Member could be discussed as part of the implementation of these two measures. Although a decision of this type is the responsibility of the Council (justice and home affairs), the Commission believes that the Europol drug unit could have a role to paly in the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2570/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) and Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Reducing IRI's debt

Given the Italian Government's failure to set up a regulatory body for the telecommunications sector, it is currently impossible to implement the 'Andreatta-Van Miert' agreement on reducing IRI's debt, which was concluded in 1993.

The only way of reducing that debt is to privatize STET, the Società Autostrade and SEAT. However, were such privatizations to be delayed and were the 'Andreatta-Van Miert' agreement to fall, all the state aids provided together with the interest thereon would have to be recalculated, which would cause serious problems for the Italian Government.

Furthermore, in its haste to privatize, the Italian Government may be tempted to sell at a loss.

Given the above, would the Commission not agree that it should:

1. ask the Italian Government to speed up adoption of the measures required to comply with the 'Andreatta-Van Miert' agreement;

2. ensure that respect is shown for basic principles such as that of transparency during the privatization process; and

3. ensure that jobs in the companies to be privatized are safeguarded?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1996)

The meeting held in Rome on 10 September 1996 between the Member of the Commission with special responsibility for competition policy and the Italian authorities resulted in the latter giving very solid undertakings on the IRI case.

If the Italian Government were to present a formal request, the Commission would therefore be prepared, taking account of market conditions, to consider extending until after 1996 the period fixed in the agreement between the Italian Government and the Commission, as the agreement in principle empowers it to do.

If that extension is to be granted, it will be a condition that it should be short and backed up by specific and realistic undertakings, particularly regarding STET and Autostrade.

The Commission has also indicated that it will monitor the procedures for the privatization of IRI's subsidiaries, which must comply with the requirements of non-discrimination and transparency.

The Italian authorities have undertaken to inform the Commission rapidly as to their privatization plans.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2623/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Failure by the Commission to submit proposals for joint action under the CFSP

In its resolution A4-0175/96, the European Parliament regretted the fact that the Commission, despite the powers conferred upon it by the TEU, in particular Article J.8(3) thereof, had not submitted to the Council any proposals for joint action.

As has clearly emerged from various statements, the European Parliament believes it to be politically important for the Commission to use this right of initiative in areas for which primarily intergovernmental procedures are envisaged.

Why has the Commission been inactive in this area and what importance does it attach to using its right of initiative under Article J.8(3) of the Treaty on European Union?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1996)

During the debate held on 17 July connected with Parliament Resolution A4-0175/96, the Commission reiterated its intention to continue exercising its right of initiative under Article J.8(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

Initiatives the Commission adopts under the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) differ in nature from proposals presented as part of the Community framework - where the Commission alone enjoys the right of initiative.

Nevertheless, by contributing to the Council's CFSP Working Groups and submitting proposals, the Commission plays to the full the role prescribed for it in TEU Articles J.5(3) and J.8(3).

Finally, the Commission submits numerous external policy papers to the Council and Parliament, including global analyses and initiatives on political, economic and trade issues.