ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1258/96 by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: Nicotine and tar content of plug tobacco

Because of the lack of a harmonized method of measuring the nicotine and tar content of plug tobacco there is considerable uncertainty about the harmful nature of smoking hand-rolled cigarettes. The figures published by manufacturers about the maximum tar content of plug tobacco are much lower than the figures used by health organizations.

Can the Commission say:

1. Whether it has any information or reliable studies showing the nicotine and tar content of plug tobacco and whether it is therefore able to give a clear indication of the public health risks of plug tobacco?

2. If not, whether it intends to have an objective study carried out in order to establish unambiguously the tar content of the various brands of plug tobacco?

3. What its position is with regard to determining a uniform measuring method based on ISO standards as laid down for cigarettes in Directive 90/239/EEC ((OJ L 137, 30.5.1990, p. 36. ))?

4. Whether it is considering using objective results and measuring methods to lay down for plug tobacco the same standards in respect of maximum tar content as those laid down for cigarettes in Directive 90/239/EEC?

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

1. No.

2. The nicotine and tar content of hand-rolled cigarettes depends on several variable factors (presence of a filter, tobacco quantity and quality, paper quality, etc.). A reliable study of this subject would therefore not seem feasible.

3. For the reasons indicated above, there is no precise method of measuring the tar content of hand-rolled cigarettes.

4. No. At the moment, in the absence of an efficient and accurate method of measuring the tar content of the cigarettes in question, the introduction of a standard would not be feasible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1026/96 by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Alternatives to food aid

The first instalments of food aid have been received in the new Member States. In these countries many people live below the poverty line as a result inter alia of mass unemployment and over-indebtedness. However, it has given rise to astonishment that the sending of food could be the best and most effective way of caring for poverty. Food aid has been considered of its very nature to be one-sided and ill-adapted to local traditions. It is not enough to argue that 'markets' have to be found for the food surpluses generated by the common agricultural policy.

Does the Commission propose to modernize its social policy by seeking alternatives to traditional food aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)

During the particularly harsh winter of 1986/87, at a time when considerable quantities of farm products were in public storage, the Commission arranged for products from intervention stocks to be supplied free of charge to the very poor for a limited period, via a number of charities selected by the Member States.

The measure was judged successful and there were numerous calls for a permanent scheme to be established on the same lines. The Commission accordingly submitted a proposal for a legal basis which became Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 ((OJ L 352, 15 December 1987. )); there was also a Commission implementing regulation, since replaced by Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92. ((OJ L 313, 30 October 1992. ))

Each year since 1988 the Commission has adopted a plan providing in detail for the distribution of products from intervention stocks in the Member States. Under Commission Decision 95/424/EC, ((OJ L 253, 21 October 1995. )) ECU 200 million is available for this year's plan. The products specified match the requirements stated by Member States on the basis of requests from national charities. The rules allow distribution not only of processed intervention products themselves but of products within the same 'family' e.g. pasta rather than oats, so the range of food available is not too restricted.

Although the scheme was originally set up on social grounds it comes under the common agricultural policy, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 envisaged it continuing until stock levels returned to normal levels. Intervention stocks are now low to non-existent, and therefore, at the request of a number of Member States, backed by Parliament, the legal basis has been amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2535/95 ((OJ L 260, 31 October 1995. )) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 267/96 ((OJ L 36, 14 February 1996. )) to enable a particular product to be bought on the market if it is not available from intervention stocks. In this case the products are not exchanged with intervention products.

This scheme has, in any case, undoubtedly proved popular with charities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2105/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Follow-up Conference to the World Social Summit held in late April 1996 in Oslo

In late April 1996 high-ranking representatives from developing countries and industrialized nations, the World Bank, IMF, UNDP and NGOs met in Oslo to instigate measures to implement the 20:20 initiative proposed at the World Social Summit held in Copenhagen in March 1995.

Did the Commission attend the Oslo Conference? If so, by whom was it represented? What was the Commission's position there with regard to the implementation of the 20:20 initiative? What contribution of its own did it propose to strengthen basic social provision in developing countries?

If the Commission was not present at the Conference, why did it not consider it necessary to attend such an important international meeting?

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

The Commission was not invited to the meeting and consequently did not attend.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1086/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Council (8 May 1996)

Subject: European collective agreements

Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the EU Treaty lays down that European collective agreements shall be implemented either in accordance with national procedures and practices (those of management and labour or of the Member States) or, in matters covered by Article 2, at the joint request of the parties, 'by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission'.

With regard to the framework agreement on parental leave, the Council has adopted a directive whose intention (Article 2(1)) is not to make the agreement binding in all the Member States but to oblige the Member States to achieve the 'result' by adopting internal arrangements for applying collective agreements (conventional collective agreements or state agreements) within a given time limit.

This being the case, in what does the notional and practical autonomy of the second part of Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the EU Treaty consist in relation to the first part of that paragraph?

Why was this measure not given the form of a decision, which, under Article 189 of the EU Treaty, is 'binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed'?

Reply (7 August 1996)

It is not for the Council to interpret either the Treaty or the Portocol on social policy, together with the Agreement on social policy annexed thereto.

Furthermore, it is for the institutions to choose on a case-by-case basis, from amongst the binding acts referred to in Article 189 of the EC Treaty, the most appropriate legal instrument for implementing the agreements concluded at Community level within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy.

As regards the framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by the UNICE, the CEEP and the ESC, the Council and the Commission felt that the most appropriate instrument was a directive, as the framework Agreement contains provisions for transposition into Member States' national law and leaves it for them to decide on the form and means of achieving the desired result.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1358/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies for associations, NGOs and various bodies

For Item B7-5050 (Aid for population policies and programmes in developing countries and follow-up to the Conference on Population and Development), can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs or other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies, together with the exact amount of such subsidies during the last financial year for which the accounts have been closed?

Answer given by M. Marín on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The Honourable Member will find below a list of the NGOs, associations or other bodies which received Community grants during the previous budget year (January-December 1995):

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1518/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Community fraud

The scale of fraud in the Community is causing concern, since it accounts for 1% of the Community budget, with instances of fraud discovered in 1995 alone accounting for more than ECU 1 billion. The proportion of fraud in the various sectors follows the same pattern as the Community budget itself - 50% accounted for by agriculture and 20-25% by the structural funds and research. In addition to this are the amounts lost as result of fraudulent operations by organized criminal organizations.

Until fraud against the Community budget is considered a criminal offence the world of organized crime will continue to take advantage of European subsidies with absolute impunity. The only real deterrent would now seem to be the ratification of the Convention on penal sanctions.

The Essen and Madrid summits called on the Member States to submit reports on the measures which they use to combat Community fraud.

Can the Commission say how many and which States have so far forwarded such reports?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)

The Essen European Council called on the Member States to submit reports on the measures they are implementing to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources. The reports were submitted by the 15 Member States to the Ecofin Council on 19 June 1995 and, as requested by the Cannes European Council, the Commission presented a comparative analysis of these reports to the Madrid European Council ((COM(95)556 final. )).

On this item, as well as on the question of the financial impact of fraud cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its 1995 report on the fight against fraud ((COM(96)173 final. )). The figures contained in this report show that 1 146 MECU were involved in irregularities ((The term 'irregularities' is defined in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)2988/95; OJ L 312, 23.12.1995. )) cases in 1995. This amount covers however both evaded traditional own resources (735 MECU) and undue expenditure (411 MECU). On the basis of these figures, there is no direct correlation between the breakdown of budgetary expenditure and the budgetary impact of irregularities discovered.

In its 1996 work programme on the fight against fraud ((COM(96) 17 final. )), the Commission has decided the priorities for the current year. The Commission expects all Member States to ratify rapidly the Convention on the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities. It will monitor the procedures for transposition into national systems. It will also pay particular attention to the adoption of protocols to this Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1782/96 by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Child labour

Child labour is a growing problem worldwide. The footballs used in the Euro 96 football championships in England, for example, were made by Pakistani children.

1. Is the Commission aware that not only these footballs, but almost all the footballs made in the world, are the product of child labour in Pakistan, and that there is also some suggestion that children are being ill-treated in the process?

2. Does the Commission agree with the questioner that a simple ban on this practice would have a disastrous effect on the children concerned?

3. Is the Commission prepared to provide financial support for attempts by UNICEF, for example, to offer children compensation in the form of education for the hours of work lost, as is being successfully done in Nepal?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)

The Commission has not received factual evidence which would support the Honourable Member's assertion that footballs used in the 1996 European football championships were made by children.

However, the Commission is fully aware of the problem of child labour which exists in a variety of industries, not only in Pakistan but throughout Asia and beyond. The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that a ban on imports is not the best way to address the problem of child labour.

The Commission is at present actively preparing, at the request of the government of Pakistan, and in collaboration with the International labour organization (ILO) and the United Nations children's fund, projects in Pakistan which will support and extend the work already being carried out there under the ILO international programme for the eradication of child labour (IPEC).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/96 by Philippe De Coene (PSE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Cyprus's homosexuality laws

Cyprus is a candidate for membership of the European Union. The European Union has enshrined respect for the European Convention on Human Rights in Article F of its Treaty, and one can reasonably assume that applicant states also respect the ECHR. Articles 171, 172 and 173 of Cyprus's penal code forbid private homosexual acts between adults, making them punishable with 5- to 14-year prison sentences.

On 22 April 1993 the Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment in the case of Medinos v. Cyprus in which it ruled that these articles from the Cypriot penal code were incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR.

Would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Has Cyprus removed Articles 171, 172 and 173 from its penal code, so that it is no longer in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR?

2. If so, can the Commission say exactly what changes have been made?

3. If not, will the Commission take steps as part of the accession negotiations to ensure that this intrusion into private life, the present legal uncertainty and the violation of the ECHR established by the Court of Human Rights are eliminated?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

Concerning the Cyprus legislation on homosexuality, the Commission been informed by the Cypriot authorities that after the decision of the European Court of human rights on 22 April 1993 (Medinos versus Cyprus) stating that Articles 171-173 of the Cyprus criminal code constitute a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the ministry of justice and public order drafted an amending bill which the Council of ministers of Cyprus adopted on 26 January 1995 and which was in turn submitted to the House of representatives on 23 February 1995.

The Bill was debated in the legal committee of the House of representatives but had not been voted upon by the date of the dissolution of the House for the 26 May 1996 parliamentary elections. The discussions will continue when the committee resumes its work in September.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0640/96 by Astrid Lulling (PPE) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Action taken by the Italian public prosecutor's office against the Brussels office of the provinces of Trentino and South Tyrol (Italy) and the Land of Tyrol (Austria)

The Italian public prosecutor's office has launched an investigation into the Brussels office of the provinces of Trentino and South Tyrol (Italy) and the Land of Tyrol (Austria) on the grounds of 'an attack on the inviolability' of the state (Article 241 of the Italian penal code).

Does the Commission take the view that cross-border cooperation between regions serves the aims it pursues in its regional policy?

Can the Commission confirm that cooperation at all levels in the Saarland/Luxembourg/Lorraine area has been a major factor in implementing cross-border programmes to promote these regions?

Doers the Commission take the view that the fact that regions of different Member States which border each other establish joint administrative structures in Brussels to improve coordination of their activities, and to increase the efficiency of their joint projects in the field of regional policy, violates the letter and the spirit of the European Treaties and can be interpreted as an attack on the territorial integrity of the Member States in question?

What action will the Commission take to help inform the public prosecutors in question of all the previous instances of cross-border cooperation, so that the investigations referred to above - which are certainly not conducive to the process of European integration - do not occur, or are halted, in future?

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

Further to the answer it gave to Mr Ebner's written question E-3107/95, ((OJ C 91, 27.3.1996. )) the Commission affirms its conviction that cross-border cooperation between local authorities and partnership between local authorities and socio-economic bodies, such as chambers of commerce, are crucial to the success of schemes for the structural development of border regions.

Given that such cases do not normally impinge on the EC Treaty, it is not for the Commission to comment on whether local authorities or regional socio-economic bodies should be represented in Brussels or on the form taken by such representation.

The Commission has on numerous occasions publicized what it believes to be good practice in the cross-border cooperation. Should the authorities concerned so wish, it is ready to provide more detailed explanations regarding the border areas referred to by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1773/96 by Erich Schreiner (NI) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Rights for the German-Austrian minorities in Slovenia

The European Union is about to conclude a Europe Agreement with Slovenia. This agreement is also supposed to guarantee protection for minorities in Slovenia. Whilst the Slovenian constitution recognizes the Italian and Hungarian ethnic groups and, to a limited extent, the Gypsy and Sinti groups as well, it does not recognize the German-Austrian minority of some 6 000 to 7 000 people, most of whom settled in the towns of Marburg, Cilli and Pettau in Lower Styria, after surviving expulsion and the death camps in 1945/46. The Ljubljana Government is still having difficulties according minority status to this German-Austrian section of the population although it is enjoyed as a matter of course by the Slovenian minority in Carinthia.

What measures does the Commission intent to take to help the German-Austrian minority in Slovenia obtain the recognition it is due as an ethnic minority?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (26 July 1996)

The Commission would point to a 1993 evaluation by the Council of Europe, which found that Slovenia did respect the rights of minorities.

The Commission takes the same view and believes that minorities in the country are protected by the constitution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1451/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Is the Commission aware that the UK Parliament has just passed an act incorporating rights for disabled people?

What steps will the Commission take to introduce equivalent rights for all the disabled people in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The Commission is familiar with the new legal provisions introduced by the British authorities with a view to combating the discrimination of the disabled.

In its opinion of 28 February 1996 'Reinforcing political union and preparing for enlargement' ((Doc COM(96) 90 final. )), the Commission formally expressed its desire for the incorporation of a general non-discrimination clause into the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0916/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Safety at sea

Does the Commission have in mind any legislative proposal which would require EU-registered vessels to have at least two propellers to avoid the disastrous effects of single-engined failure?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (10 May 1996)

The Commission has supported efforts at international level to minimize the risk of failure of shipborne propulsion and manoeuvring systems. Since its establishment in 1959, the International maritime organization (IMO) has striven to improve the reliability of such systems and has established several regulations in the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) convention, applicable to passenger ships and cargo ships engaged on international voyages.

The 1974 SOLAS convention, as amended, requires national maritime administrations - which are responsible for the implementation of the Convention - to give special consideration to the reliability of single essential propulsion power to ensure that it is sufficient to give the ship a navigable speed, especially in the case of unconventional arrangements ((SOLAS Convention, Chapter II-1, Part C: Machinery installations, Regulation 26, ¶ 2. )).

In its communication 'A common policy on safe seas' of 24 February 1993 ((COM(93)66 final. )), the Commission, taking into account the global character of shipping and its impact on safety and competitiveness, established a policy based upon the principle of ensuring proper and effective implementation of international rules. In its communication 'Towards a new maritime strategy' ((COM(96)81. )) the Commission has however emphasized the role the Community can play in order to ensure safety and fair competition in international maritime trade.

Taking the above into account, the Commission has no plans to bring forward any legislative proposals which would require Community registered vessels to have at least two propellers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1472/96 by Kenneth Collins (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Commission Decisions in 1995

In its Annual Report on the activities of the European Union, the Commission has normally listed the number of legal instruments that it has adopted in the course of a year (e.g. 7335 such instruments in 1993 - Annual Report for that year, Paragraph 1025). However, in its Report on the year 1995, the Commission omit to mention this figure (Paragraph 1057).

Is there a reason for this omission?

Could the Commission please supply the correct figure?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)

For technical reasons, the figures on instruments adopted by the Commission in 1995 were not available in time for inclusion in the 1995 General Report. The figures are as follows: 3025 decisions, 2801 regulations, 298 opinions, 35 directives and 25 recommendations.