ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0903/96 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Bicycles on high-speed trains

Of the two high-speed train prototypes for the Amsterdam-Cologne-Frankfurt route, both the Netherlands railways and the German railways chose a type of train (ICE 2.2M) which has no area reserved for transporting bicycles. At present there are facilities on EC trains for carrying bicycles, so this would be a retrograde step.

It is even more remarkable as the need for intermodal transport is increasingly being recognized, an in the Green Paper by Commissioner Kinnock which states that the goal of a European transport policy 'must be the achievement of networks of public passenger systems which fit together so that passengers can change easily from train to bus to tram, from car or bike to public transport, which interconnect links long-distance and local transport'. The high-speed trains which form an important part of the Trans-European Networks now seem to be disregarding this goal.

1. Does the Commission share my view that the railways' plan to dispense with facilities for transporting bicycles in future high-speed trains is at variance with the Commission's plans to set up transport networks in which various forms of transport can be combined?

2. Does it share my view that such a move is unwise as long-term investment is involved and the importance of environmentally-friendly means of transport, including bicycles, is increasingly being recognized?

3. Will it urge the European railways federation, the Netherlands railways and the German railways to amend the plans to provide adequate capacity for transporting bicycles in high-speed trains?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1996)

The Commission believes it essential to develop integrated networks of passenger transport so that passengers can change easily from mode to mode. As the Honourable Member knows, this is a major theme of its green paper on the Citizens' Network ((COM(95) 601 final. )), which recognises the importance of integrating the use of bicycles with public transport. It is important that transport operators, including railway enterprises, pay greater attention to this dimension of transport. In this respect, Dutch railways should receive credit for their operation of bicycle centres at many railway stations.

At the same time, the Community seeks to ensure the management independence of the railways precisely so that they can respond to customers' needs, improve their quality of service and raise their efficiency. Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community railways ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )) contains clear provisions on independent management, which the Commission considers to be essential to the future development of the railways. Consequently, while it has great sympathy for the Honourable Member's concerns and communicates its views about the desirability of making provision for bicycle carrying in railway trains, it considers that the relevant policy decisions are most appropriately left to railway management.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0902/96 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Delays in implementing the Structural Funds in Italy for the period 1994-1999

During a visit to Brussels by Italian Budget Minister Mr Mario Arcelli, Commissioner Mrs Wulf-Mathies said that the use made by Italy of its Structural Fund appropriations for 1994 and 1995 is abnormally low.

It also seems that only 2.5% of the appropriations for the Mezzogiorno for the period 1994-1999 have been utilized whereas 30% should have been used by this stage.

Can the Commission provide a table showing all the expenditure committed under the various Structural Fund objectives in Italy?

What, if any, action does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis Italy?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1996)

According to the most recent information supplied by the Italian authorities regarding the current programming period, the global levels of structural funds co-financed expenditure by implementing agencies for the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1995 is as follows:

>TABLE>

(1) These figures do not include Community intiatives. (2) The % figure relates to the total expenditure programmed for the period 1994-1999 (1994-1996 for Objective 2). (3) Up to 28.2.1996.

For some time now the Commission has expressed concern about the poor implementation of structural fund programmes in Italy. For this reason already in 1995 it concluded an agreement with the Italian central and regional authorities on a package of measures to improve the management of structural fund programmes. The Commission considers this package crucial to the improved use of structural funds in Italy and is keeping the implementation of the agreement under close review.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1328/96 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Imports of wine from third countries

There is a discrepancy between the quantity of imported wine registered by the customs and the volume of wine in the hands of traders. Most wine imports are of white wine, while in the commercial sector most imported wine is red. Imports of grape must considerably exceed the traditional trade flows and uses, and imported wines are regularly - and frequently - found masquerading as Community wines. Given that all this amounts to a serious distortion of the Community market in wine and has a damaging effect on winegrowers' incomes:

1. Does the Commission possess guarantees that in those Member States with the largest volume of imports, all due controls have been properly carried out?

2. Does the Commission intend to take special steps to verify the implementation of the controls and investigate the consequences of the situation created by these imports?

3. Will the Commission provide information as to the reliability of the controls carried out in each Member State?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1280/96, E-1324/96 and E-1328/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1996)

The Commission has also noted that imports of wine from non-Community countries, and especially from Argentina to Spain, have increased considerably in the last year.

The Commission learnt from the press of rumours according to which certain irregularities had been committed in this respect. It would point out that Member States are responsible for import checks and that it has reminded them on a number of occasions of the need for national supervisory bodies to monitor imports closely.

Although to date the Commission has not received any official complaint concerning fraudulent imports, it has contacted the national supervisory bodies to draw their attention to these imports in particular and the subsequent use of the wine in the trade chain. The supervisory bodies have also been instructed to conduct a survey of these imports, the results of which are still pending.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1693/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: European Observatory for SMEs

A crucial section of the Observatory's report deals with employment and labour market policies. Its findings are not encouraging with regard to the usefulness of active and passive labour market policies. Neither the active policies pursued in the countries of northern Europe nor the policy of assistance in the South have achieved the desired results. The debate on current levels of social security and the way the systems operate is a long way from reaching a consensus but this militates for an approach more closely tied to the objectives and instruments set out in the White Paper. The present structure of economic recovery shows that it will not be possible to bring the unemployment rate down without an effort on the part of SMEs.

Will the Commission therefore give careful consideration to this matter and to the creation of a programme which rewards those entrepreneurs who opt to expand their firms rather than choosing to remain small, even where the market would allow them to do so?

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

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission feels that public action in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) should focus particularly on enterprises with considerable growth potential, these being the most likely to create employment in the longer term, without however neglecting those whose main purpose is to provide a stable framework for the individual or family activity of their founders, or preventing the latter from enjoying the full benefits of enterprise policy measures. This is, moreover, the reason why the Commission stressed the need to promote entrepreneurial initiative at all levels in its report to the Madrid European Council.

The Commission will, therefore, continue to focus all its attention on the role of SMEs in creating employment, and will endeavour to stimulate, innovate and add to the range of existing measures, particularly as part of a new integrated programme in favour of SMEs and the craft industries, by giving priority to the promotion of a genuine enterprise culture based on values such as independence, risk-taking and a sense of personal commitment. Whilst accepting that most of the actions will need to be carried out at the level of the Member States, the Commission could play a part by encouraging the exchange of best practice in this field and helping to keep a record of the most dynamic entrepreneurs, as was the case with the 'Europe's 500' project. Under the third multiannual programme of Community action for SMEs, the Commission also intends to extend the use of the methodology for auditing Euromanagement pilot schemes to vital growth factors other than research and technological development (such as training in strategic management techniques and globalisation), and to adopt a decentralised approach by encouraging initiatives to set up 'enterprise clubs' which bring together entrepreneurs who are keen to make a personal contribution towards developing a growth strategy for their region.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1367/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies for associations, NGOs and various bodies

For Item B7-7040 (Subsidies for certain activities of organizations pursuing human rights objectives), 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?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1363/96, E-1367/96 and E-1368/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The Commission seeks to ensure the greatest possible openness in the use made of the Community budget, including those parts of it covering human rights activities.

Specific information is provided for headings B7-7000, 7040 and 7070. At the end of the financial year, a report on the use these headings have been put to is sent to the President of Parliament and the Chairman of the relevant parliamentary committee along with full details of the recipient associations, NGOs and other bodies awarded grants and the amount of support each has received.

This year, a report on the use made of funding for all human rights budget headings was set out in a Commission communication. ((COM(95) 191 final. ))

The Honourable Member will find all the information he requests in these reports.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1397/96 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Recruitment of technical coordination consultants by the Technical Assistance Management Company, EPE, in Greece

In December 1995, the Technical Assistance Management Company (TAMC), EPE, which is under the supervision of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and manages European Union funding, advertised five posts for technical consultants to coordinate Community programmes in Greece. Once the candidates had established their credentials, they were then interviewed by the Ministry's monitoring committee for large-scale projects in the presence of EU representatives.

In a letter dated 18 March 1996, ref. 6913, the Director-General of EPE informed Mr Elias Fillipakopoulos, an A-grade surveyor and engineer with the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, that he had been selected to fill the post of technical coordination consultant by decision of the State Secretary for Economic Affairs, Mr Pakhtas. However, less than 24 hours later, the same Director-General wrote to Mr Fillipakopoulos (letter dated 20 March 1996, ref. 6928) informing him that the announcement of his appointment had been an administrative error and that his civil service pension rights were an obstacle to his appointment.

According to my information, the reasons for reversing the decision have nothing to do with pension rights, which do not constitute an obstacle to the appointment, but with the fact that Mr Fillipakopoulos is a leading member of the New Democracy Party. Will the Commission therefore say, inasmuch as it is concerned, whether the legal procedure for the appointment of the technical coordination consultants was followed and, if it was not, whether it can intercede to ensure that the irregularities are remedied, the legal procedure observed and similar incidents do not re-occur?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)

According to information at the Commission's disposal, the rules laid down in the procedure for assessing technical coordination consultants were followed and the candidate in question was ranked seventh out of eleven candidates. In addition, the invitation to tender did not state that five such consultants would be taken on but rather five or fewer.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1521/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy

The compensation being considered for farmers and the authorities in the United Kingdom in connection with the emergence of BSE seems unjust, in that it rewards those who should have been penalized for bad farming. Can the Commission - if the economic measures planned by the EU are actually carried out - arrange immediately for on-the-spot inspections designed to ensure effective checks (for example the registration of cattle, individual identification and certified proof of destruction) on the actual destruction of the relevant animals, in order to prevent evasion of the rules and other significant forms of fraud?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1520/96 and E-1521/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The inspections in the United Kingdom concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) were performed by the Office of veterinary and phytosanitary inspection and control with the participation of experts from the Commission and Member States. The missions also examined the controls performed in the United Kingdom on the destruction of meat and other by-products in order to avoid their incorporation into the human and animal food chains.

In the United Kingdom, before 29 March 1996 only animals which were suspected of BSE because of clinical signs were killed and destroyed. After 28 March 1996 the sale of meat of bovine animals over the age of 30 months was prohibited. On 3 May 1996 a programme to slaughter and destroy bovine animals over the age of 30 months was started in order to exclude them from the human food and animal feed chains and from use for cosmetic and pharmaceutical products.

At the request of the Community bodies, the United Kingdom presented a plan to the Commission on 3 June 1996 laying down supplementary measures to control and eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom. After the United Kingdom had agreed to modify the plan, it was adopted by Commission Decision 96/385/EC of 25 June 1996 ((OJ L 151, 26.6.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1599/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Procedure for deciding on the location of landfill sites in Portugal and the financing thereof

In Portugal, various procedures are currently under way with a view to deciding on the location of, preparing public competitions for, and subsequently constructing, landfill sites for the disposal of household and industrial waste.

This is the case with, inter alia, the landfill sites in Vale do Minho, Vale do Lima, Vila Nova de Gaia e Santa Maria da Feira, Coimbra and Beira Interior.

Decisions regarding the location of such sites are the responsibility of the local councils of the areas within which the locations earmarked for the construction of such sites are situated (respectively Valenca, Viano do Castelo, Vila Nova de Gaia, Coimbra and Covilhã). Such decisions have been hotly disputed by the local people, who are accusing their respective councils of taking decisions on the basis of technically ill-founded and/or incomplete studies without having carried out environmental impact studies and, in certain cases, of taking decisions without having made any kind of study public.

Since these sites are infrastructure items for which there will be significant Community co-financing, would the Commission say which body is responsible for ratifying the methods used by the local councils in order to decide on the location of such sites and who is to take the final decision regarding the financing thereof - the Portuguese Government alone, the Commission, or both?

Even if such decisions are the sole responsibility of the Portuguese Government, will the Commission consider reversing them, particularly in cases where it appears that environmental impact studies have not been carried out and Community environmental laws and directives have not been observed?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The choice of method for treating urban waste and the selection of the sites concerned is the responsibility of the national authorities.

The projects mentioned by the Honourable Member may be eligible for cofinancing from the Cohesion Fund. Should the Commission receive a request for cofinancing, it would ascertain whether the projects were in compliance with the relevant Community legislation, such compliance being an essential condition for the allocation of any cofinancing.

Installations for the elimination of dangerous waste are required under Community law to undergo an environmental impact evaluation (not a study) before construction is authorized.

Other installations should undergo an evaluation of this kind if the national authorities deem this necessary.

The consultation of the local people is a mandatory requirement for such evaluations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1346/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various bodies

Can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs and bodies receiving Community subsidies under budget heading B7-210 (Aid to help the populations of developing countries and others hit by disasters or serious crises)? Can it state the exact total of these subsidies at the close of the last financial year?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1346/96, E-1347/96 and E-1348/96 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)

The budget headings referred to by the Honourable Member concern humanitarian aid, which is aid for the victims of natural or man-made disasters, such as wars or other conflicts. Such aid goes directly to the victims, on an impartial basis and irrespective of ethnic origin and religious or political beliefs, and is generally channelled through the Commission's 'traditional' partner organizations.

Some 170 international and non-governmental organizations, including a number of United Nations institutions and Red Cross, are working with the Commission under the framework partnership contract which provides them with an appropriate framework to carry out humanitarian operations.

A table of appropriations allocated under budget headings B7-210, B7-211 and B7-217 to NGOs, international organizations and other partners that have carried out operations financed by the Commission, together with a full list of the humanitarian organizations that have signed the framework partnership contract with the Community will be sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1673/96 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Investigation of fraud in connection with imports of preserved tuna and tuna steaks under the GSP

In 1994 the Commission carried out a number of on-the-spot inspections in various firms in Ecuador and Colombia which export preserved tuna and tuna steaks to the EU under the customs exemptions granted by the GSP. The Commission's own reports show that irregularities were found which can only be termed scandalous.

In view of the outcome of these inspections, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that there is no fraud involved in the import of tuna steaks and preserved tuna under the GSP-Andean Pact, and when will it carry out fresh on-the-spot checks in order to force firms to put an immediate stop to the large number of irregularities noted?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)

The inquiries conducted in Ecuador and Colombia by the Commission, with the full cooperation of the authorities, concerned processed tuna imported into the Community with generalized system of preferences (GSP) certificates of preferential origin in 1994. As indicated in the 1994 annual report on the fight against fraud, the Commission has requested Member States to proceed with the recovery of duties on non-originating imports established during these enquiries in Ecuador and Colombia.

The Commission does not initiate inspections in situ, but it does investigate suspected irregularities. It follows that the Commission itself is not able to take direct action against third country exporters in order to prevent them from committing further fraud. This task falls to the authorities in the third countries concerned. They are in particular responsible for issuing Form A certificates which confer preferential status.

The authorities in the two countries have now introduced supplementary inspection procedures to ensure that the goods exported have the correct origin. Legislative measures were also adopted to prevent irregularities of this kind. New rules of origin have been established and have been applicable since 7 January 1995, which imply that the donor country content provision would allow for a cumulation of origin with the Community vessels. The companies and government departments involved therefore now understand better the criteria governing benefits from the Community GSP.

The 'Fight against fraud' work programme 1996 announces a Commission communication in the area of preferential agreements. It will address a number of issues aiming at strengthening the system and making it more fraud-proof. This communication will be presented in autumn 1996.

To this day, the Commission has no supplementary information concerning Ecuador and Colombia. However, if the Honourable Member has specific information, the Commission would be ready to re-open the investigations.