ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3201/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Level of financing of pilot urban projects

On 30 November 1995 the Commission published a call for the submission of pilot urban projects, in the context of the innovative measures under Article 10 of the ERDF. Of the projects submitted, 91 were from Spain.

A number of the projects submitted concern urban renewal in municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Valencia.

What level of funding does the Commission have in mind for the pilot urban projects under Article 10 of the ERDF? What proportion of this funding is likely to go to the projects submitted by Spain and, in particular, by municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Valencia?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3198/96, E-3199/96, E-3200/96, E-3201/96, E-3203/96, E-3204/96, E-3205/96, E-3206/96, E-3207/96, E-3208/96, E-3209/96, E-3210/96, E-3211/96, E-3212/96, E-3213/96, E-3214/96 and E-3215/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

The Commission received over 500 applications in response to its call for proposals; of these, 97 were from Spain. The available budget of ECU 60 million will enable the Commission to part-finance some 25 projects throughout the Union.

With regard to the selection procedure, the call for proposals states that: 'a team of independent international experts will assist the Commission services to identify the most innovative ideas in order to select those proposals which correspond most closely to the criteria set. The final number of proposals to be part-financed will be decided by the Commission, taking into consideration overall availability of funds, themes of proposals and distribution of appropriate projects within the territory of the Union.'

Since this procedure is now under way, it is not at present possible to assess the chances of a town being selected or the amount of Community part-finance which it might receive. Equally, no other estimate concerning a Member State or region can be made.

With regard to the number and name of projects which could concern municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Valencia other than those expressly referred to in these Written Questions, the Commission cannot derogate from the principle of confidentiality which applies to this stage of the procedure, particularly since proposals for measures involving more than one local authority may be accepted if that cooperation increases the value added.

The time required for the thorough consideration and careful selection of the exceptionally large number of applications received means that the Commission will not be able to take a decision before the end of the year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3069/96 by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Dutch-language interpreters and translators

1. What proportion of (a) interpreters and (b) translators at the European institutions, interpreting or translating into Dutch, are Belgian?

2. When recruiting Dutch-language interpreters and translators, are there any upper and/or lower limits for the number of Belgians in relation to the number of Netherlands nationals?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3069/96 and E-3143/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1996)

The proportion of Belgian officials and other staff working into Dutch in the Commission's interpreting and translation services as a whole is 48%. For information on the other institutions, the Honourable Member should ask each one directly.

The Commission would point out that under Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, no posts may be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State and recruitment must be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States.

The Commission therefore tries to ensure that nationals of all Member States are kept informed of recruitment possibilities and are able to take part in open competitions. In common with the other institutions, the Commission does not operate a quota system providing a specific number of posts per Member State. Such a system would be contrary to the Staff Regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2666/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Excise duties on alcoholic beverages

The different rates of excise duty applied by the various Member States have led to increased smuggling, fraud, illegal production and undeclared consumption.

The rate of excise duty levied on alcoholic beverages is five times higher than the minimum laid down in the European Directive (ECU 550 per hectolitre of pure alcohol) in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Wine is zero-rated in Italy, Germany, Greece, Spain, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal, while the rate of excise duty levied on beer varies from 1% in Spain to 15% in Finland (where the excise duty is 1.87 ECU per hectolitre of alcohol of finished product).

As it is obvious that this situation cannot continue, would the Commission take action to harmonize excise duties by fulfilling its obligation to lay down revised minimum rates and establish maximum rates that may not be exceeded?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)

In its 1985 white paper ((COM(85) 310. )), the Commission stressed the need, in a Europe without frontiers, for a closer approximation of excise duty rates, and in 1987 it proposed common rates of excise duty for alcoholic drinks.

When both the Parliament and the Council rejected this approach, the Commission proposed minimum rates of excise duty for all products, together with higher target rates to which all Member States were to move over time. The difference between the two rates was the maximum which, in the Commission's opinion, could be permitted before unacceptable distortion of competition or deflection of trade or revenue arose.

In adopting those proposals in time for the removal of fiscal frontiers on 1 January 1993, the Council removed all mention of target rates from their texts, and severely reduced the levels of the minimum rates which had been proposed (in the case of wine to zero).

Since that date the Commission has produced its first review ((COM(95) 285 final. )) of the operation of the existing minimum rates. For the reasons set out in that review, it made no proposal to alter them, but instead undertook a wide-ranging consultation process. That approach was generally well received by both Parliament and Council, and for its part, Parliament contributed to the consultation process by adopting an opinion on the Commission's report.

The Commission is now carrying out its second review of minimum rates. This will take account of the background outlined in the Honourable Member's question, and will be presented - together with any proposals - to Parliament and Council in the first quarter of 1997. It will be recognised that no change in the existing minimum rates can be adopted without the unanimous agreement of Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Leghold traps

With reference to the proposal to amend Regulation 3254/91 on the use of leghold traps to catch certain species of wild animal (COM(95) 737 ((OJ C 58, 28.2.1996, p. 17. ))), can the Commission undertake to amend existing agreements with third countries and to negotiate future ones to include a clause containing a joint undertaking to cooperate in promoting environmental protection? Can it also draft, in the near future, a communication concerning the strategies which the EU should develop in the context of the WTO to ensure that the rules safeguarding the environment and public health with regard to the importation of goods are accompanied by the promotion of corresponding environmental protection in the producer countries?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

The Commission sees no direct link between the question put by the Honourable Member and the reference made to the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibiting the use of leghold traps.

As regards promoting environmental protection in the context of the World Trade Organisation, the Commission points out that on 8 March 1996 it presented a communication on trade and the environment to the Council and Parliament. ((COM(96) 54. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/96 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Council (25 September 1996)

Subject: Asylum-seekers from Burundi

In March 1996, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK apparently suspended expulsion to Burundi of asylum-seekers whose cases had been closed. France and Germany, however, were planning to return such asylum-seekers.

1. Which Member States have sent asylum-seekers back to Burundi since March?

2. Have the Member States, which, in Article K.1 of the Treaty agreed to regard asylum policy as a matter of common interest, decided to pursue a common policy in this field, and, if so, what is it?

Answer (17 January 1997)

The Council has no information concerning explusion of Burundian asylum-seekers by any of the Member States.

There is no Council-defined common policy among the Member States regarding the return or otherwise of Burundian asylum-seekers whose applications have been definitively rejected.

However the Council's joint position of 4 March 1996 on the harmonized application of the definition of the term "refugee" in Article 1 of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees ((OJ L 63, 13.3.1996, p. 2. )) is likely to lead to a convergence of Member States' policies regarding the matter referred to in the Question, although the Council does not yet have any hard evidence of such an effect.

Moreover, in its Resolution of 14 October 1996 laying down the priorities for cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs for the period from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1998 ((OJ C 319, 26.10.1996, p. 1. )), the Council included the examination of forms of alternative protection (de facto protection and humanitarian residence permit) among its priorities for improving cooperation with regard to immigration and asylum.

In the meantime, any delegation may request that the issue of the treatment of Burundian asylum-seekers be discussed at the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum (CIREA).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/96 by Umberto Bossi (ELDR) to the Council (25 September 1996)

Subject: Procedures for the accession of Padania to the European Union

Given that within the Italian State there are two profoundly different production systems - Padania which is the world's tenth to fifteenth most competitive economy, and the southern region which has a ranking of between 150 and 200 - and that these systems are linked by a rehabilitation network which the Rome Government has failed to use successfully to boost the development of the South, and which is now adding enormously to the public costs pressing upon Padania;

Given that Italy cannot join the single currency, since this would have a dramatic impact on Padania's economy and would result in the breakup of the country;

Given that the above situation inevitably means the introduction of two different currencies for the two productive systems, and the consequent independence of Padania;

Given that time is pressing, and that 15 September 1996 will mark the Declaration of Independence in Venice and the birth of the Padana Federal Republic, with its own Provisional Government;

Can the Council state what procedures are provided within the Community in the case of Padania, which is already part of a Member State, particularly as regards its accession to the Union, bearing in mind the firm resolve of that nation to play a leading role in the process of European integration, a resolve which is dictated by its history, its economy and its culture?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2448/96 and E-2450/96 (17 January 1997)

The Treaty can be amended only following an inter-governmental conference which, as its name suggests, is a conference between Member States' governments.

The Council as such is not qualified to reply to the questions put by the Honourable Members.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2995/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) and Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Special Community label for goods produced by drug rehabilitation centres

Drugs are one of the main evils facing the world as we approach the millennium and the drug problem has often been debated in Parliament in an effort to find a solution. Rehabilitation centres are internationally recognized as providing one of the best withdrawal treatments.

Drug withdrawal programmes almost always involve occupational therapy, psychotherapy and socio-rehabilitation activities, such as art therapy, music therapy, psychodrama, workshops, etc.

Does the Commission not think it would be a good idea to introduce a special Community label for all goods (agricultural products, crafts, paintings, sculpture, etc.) produced by the various rehabilitation centres?

Does the Commission not consider that the introduction of a special Community label would give rehabilitation centres that applied to use it, an incentive to improve product quality?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (17 January 1997)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2961/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Employment and olive-growing

Does the Commission know how many jobs are linked to olive-growing and the production of olive oil?

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

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

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

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

The Commission attaches great importance to quality and believes that, whatever option is chosen, there will be an important role for Member States and regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2585/96 by Francesco Baldarelli (PSE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Funding for European young farmers' organizations

Public information about the activities of the European Union is central to the process of building the common European home, especially where certain traditional economic sectors such as agriculture are concerned. Youth organizations have a vital role to play in this connection, since it is essential that the young generations should be firmly and solidly committed to Europe.

The EU currently provides approximately ECU 1 m under Article B2-514 of the budget to finance the work of the CEJA - European Council of Young Farmers - and the PEJA.

The Commission, however, has proposed to do away with funding under Article B2-514 in the 1997 budget. Instead, two new headings have been created, namely Items B2-5121 ('Surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings'), the appropriation for which is ECU 7.5 m, and B2-5121 ('Enhancing public awareness of the common agricultural policy'), the appropriation for which is ECU 2 m.

Given that the activities of the CEJA/PEJA and other organizations scarcely fit in with Item B2-5121 ('Surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings'), it is obvious that funding for these organizations will be substantially and drastically cut, with the result that many of the ventures undertaken to date will have to be abandoned.

How will the Commission provide effective safeguards to preserve the laudable work of the European young farmers' organizations that receive European funding and focus their efforts on information and public events involving thousands of young farmers from the EU countries?

Even allowing for the need for economy, does the Commission not consider that the funds earmarked for these organizations amount to very modest sums which, moreover, without wasting resources, are used for activities in the public interest designed to further aims that can be endorsed unreservedly?

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

Each year the Commission uses money from budget heading B2-514 to fund the activities of the European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA). CEJA has been regularly informed of any potential risks to the scale and timing of its activities. On occasions in the past its grant has had to be appreciably reduced because of a lack of resources, and CEJA has accordingly had to reduce or postpone its meetings.

As regards 1997, general budget discipline explains the level at which heading B2-5122 has been set in the preliminary draft budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2898/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Cohesion Fund and Cantabria (Spain)

What projects have been financed under the Cohesion Fund in the region of Cantabria (Spain)?

In which projects, including those involving more than one region, has the Autonomous Community of Cantabria been included as a beneficiary of investment?

What are the sums involved in the cofinancing of each individual project?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2897/96, E-2898/96 and E-2965/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

Applications for finance submitted to the Commission are managed by Member State, with the result that there are no regional data on projects financed by the Cohesion Fund.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Members to refer to the annual reports of the Cohesion Fund which are sent direct to them and to Parliament's General Secretariat. Annex I to these Reports contains the main points of projects financed by the Cohesion Fund under Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. )) and a description of the project and its objectives, its location and the amounts financed.

Data on the projects approved in 1996 will be available at the end of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3312/96 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1996)

Subject: 'Hidden economy' and GDP

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

What proportion of GDP in Sweden is accounted for by the 'hidden economy'?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3280/96, E-3298/96, E-3299/96, E-3300/96, E-3301/96, E-3302/96, E-3303/96, E-3304/96, E-3305/96, E-3306/96, E-3307/96, E-3308/96, E-3309/96, E-3310/96, E-3311/96, E-3312/96 and E-3313/96 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

It is not possible at this stage to accurately estimate the impact of the hidden economy on gross domestic product, since the methods used differ considerably from one Member State to the next and several Member States also make implicit corrections which are very difficult to assess.

It is intended that the work on the issue of exhaustiveness be completed by the end of 1998, and it should then be possible to compile the estimates requested with a certain degree of reliability and comparability between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2985/96 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Question No E-0878/96 on battery cages

Further to its answer to Written Question No E-0878/96 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 97. )), is the Commission aware that the application in some Member States of Directive 88/166/EEC ((OJ L 74, 19.3.1988, p. 83. )) is giving an unfair competitive advantage to those Member States which are not applying the directive and have no system of inspection?

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

The Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member, as already pointed out in reply to the Written Question E-878/96 by Mr Provan ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996. )), and on several occasions to other Honourable Members, that the Commission is for the time being short of staff in the sector of veterinary inspection. Since the previous reply no improvement in this situation has occurred. The Commission is aware that if some Member States do not apply Directive 88/166/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages ((OJ L 74, 19.3.1988. )) this can provoke unfair competition. The Commission can however but use its scarce resources to address a limited number of priorities.

As indicated already, the Commission is ready to fulfil its obligations once the necessary budgetary funds for the employment of further veterinary inspectors are made available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2779/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Turkish violation of the status of the Straits of the Bosphorus

The Greek review 'Trans-Weekly' reports that Turkey is attempting to apply restrictive measures to place international shipping passing through the Bosphorus under surveillance.

Such actions are in breach of the Montreux Treaty which lays down the precise arrangements for the administration of the Straits. The IMO alone is competent to take measures but only after taking account of the text of the Treaty and its stipulations.

1. Does the Commission intend to respond to Turkey's unprecedented and extremely provocative conduct?

2. What measures does the Commission propose to take to bring Turkey into line and ensure that that country conducts itself in a manner which is not contemptuous of international treaties and does not jeopardize the safety of shipping or the proper functioning of the international economic system?

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

Acting upon the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission has contacted the Turkish authorities.

The Turkish authorities have said they have no plans to adopt measures concerning shipping passing through the Bosphorus. They therefore deny the reports published in the Greek review 'Trans Weekly'.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely.