ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/96 by José Torres Couto (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: European Social Fund - Investments/Financing costs

According to the Commission's understanding, profits from investments which project organizers have made or have occasion to make using funds transferred to them constitute income accruing to the European Social Fund.

What is the Commission's attitude as regards the financing costs borne by project organizers when they are obliged to borrow money from banks in order to cope with lengthy delays in the transfer of the various 'instalments' of funds and balances owing from Brussels to the Member States? Can the Commission give reasons in support of its position?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)

According to the legislation in force (Article 21(1), (2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 ((OJ No L 193, 31.7.1993. ))) 'payments of financial assistance shall be made in accordance with the corresponding budgetary commitments to the national, regional or local authority or body designated for the purpose in the application submitted through the Member State concerned as a general rule within two months from receipt of an acceptable application'. The Commission scrupulously respects these deadlines. Provision is made in the same Article for a system of advances from the Commission to project organisers, covering up to 80% of the commitment.

Payments made by project managers to final beneficiaries must comply with Article 21(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 which stipulates that 'Member States shall designate the authorities empowered to issue the certificates referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 and shall ensure that the beneficiaries receive the advances and payments as soon as possible, and as a general rule within three months of receipt of the appropriations by the Member State and provided that the beneficiaries' applications fulfil the conditions necessary for payment to be made'.

The Commission checks national provisions relating to respect of the three-month deadline for the transfer of funds to the final beneficiaries in order to avoid cash deficits which might jeopardise the smooth implementation of the measures.

With regard to eligibility of the financing costs borne by project organisers, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2084/931 which stipulates that no provision is made for such expenditure.

Pursuant to Regulations (EEC) Nos 2081/931 and 2082/93, the Commission shall contribute to the cost of vocational training measures. If such measures generate income, in particular resulting from the use of advances received by project organisers, the cost of the measures is inevitably reduced. Therefore, in order to determine the real cost, these amounts must be considered as income from the measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0702/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Increase in the maximum guaranteed quantity for olive oil for Spain

The Union of Small Farmers (UPA) of Jaén, one of the Andalusian provinces which are among Spain's largest oil producers, has called for an increase in the maximum guaranteed quantity for olive oil for Spain (at present 1 350 000 tonnes), to ensure that farmers are not penalized for exceeding it;

it is felt that there is no genuine production surplus. For climate reasons, olive cultivation is being extended in Spain, which entails the risk that the present maximum guaranteed quantity will not be sufficient in future years.

What proposals could the Commission consider with a view to responding to this demand of the Andalusian farmers for the forthcoming marketing years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

The maximum guaranteed quantity (MGQ) for olive oil was set for the first time during the 1987-88 reforms as part of the stabilizing mechanism.

When it set price and aid levels for the 1994-95 marketing year (see Council Regulation (EC) No 1875/94 ((OJ L 197, 30.7.1994. ))), the Council again fixed the olive oil MGQ for 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 at the previous level of 1 350 000 tonnes.

The olive oil MGQ will be reviewed by the end of the 1996-97 marketing year (31 October) and proposals tabled.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1039/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Building contractors' employees' status

Has the Commission considered the common practice of building contractors requiring their workers to work as self-employed?

Given the high risk to personal safety on building sites, what measures does the Commission propose so that workers' rights under current health and safety legislation can be extended to employees not working 'cards in'?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)

Article 118a of the EC Treaty concerns only the protection of the safety and health of workers. Directives based on this Article cannot create rights and obligations for self-employed persons. However, this principle is moderated by the need to impose certain obligations on self-employed persons working at the same workplace as workers for the purposes of Article 118a of the EC Treaty, to ensure that the work of the self-employed persons does not affect the safety and health of the other workers.

This is notably the case with Council Directive 92/57/EEC on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites ((OJ No L 245, 26.8.1992. )), whose Article 10 imposes a set of obligations on self-employed persons with an eye to preserving safety and health on the construction site.

However, the Commission is aware of the specific problem of the safety and health of self-employed persons as such. The Commission also intends to examine, in the context of the Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work (1996-2000) ((COM(95)282 final. )) the need for a proposal for a Council Recommendation on the safety and health of self-employed persons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0317/96 by James Moorhouse (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)

Subject: Use of the Luxembourg Compromise in the Council

1. On how many occasions have Member States attempted to invoke the Luxembourg Compromise in the Council since the entry into effect of

- the Single European Act, and- the Maastricht Treaty on European Union?

2. In each of the cases listed in answer to question 1 above, which Member State invoked the Compromise?

3. Does the Council agree with the British and French governments that the Luxembourg Compromise remains a living reality at the heart of Council decision-making?

Reply (3 June 1996)

1. The Council does not have any record of these matters and is therefore unable to provide the information for which the Honourable Member has asked in questions 1 and 2.

2. The conclusions of the extraordinary Council meeting in Luxembourg on 17, 18, 27 and 28 January 1966 do not prevent the Council from taking its decisions in accordance with the EC Treaty. The fact that that Treaty provides in many cases for adoption by majority does not prevent Members of the Council from endeavouring, as a general rule, to narrow their differences before the Council votes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0867/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: EU imports of Mexican avocados

EU imports of Mexican avocados are increasing at an alarming rate, thus jeopardizing the development of Community production. However, the proposed reform of the COM in fruit and vegetables does not refer to avocados in the section on the quality standards applicable to Annex N.1 products.

If this situation remains unchanged it will not be possible to control imports of products from Mexico (under more favourable price conditions), the flow of which will be impossible to control unless quality standards similar to those applicable to Community produce are imposed.

Could the Commission say whether there are any proposals for including avocados amongst the Annex 1 products and defining quality and other standards relating thereto?

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

The Commission is indeed aware of the rise in avocado imports from Mexico during 1993 and 1994. The figures it has for 1995, though incomplete, bear out this trend. However, the rise appears to be at the expense of other traditional suppliers since total imports of avocadoes have remained stable over the period and show that the non-member country share of the Community market is stagnating. As a result, the Commission does not believe that the rise in Mexican imports could disrupt the Community market.

The Commission agrees that standards are a valuable tool in achieving fair trade and transparent markets. The inclusion of avocados in the list of products classified under a system of standards is being looked into by the Council as part of its work on reform of common organization of the markets for processed fruit and vegetables. ((COM(95) 434 final. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1022/96 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Tied houses

Recognizing the importance of the tied house to the brewing industry, not just within the UK but in other parts of the EU, would the Commissioner indicate how many observations he has received to the Green Paper on the Block Exemption and their nature?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1996)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 ((OJ L 173, 30.6.1983. )) of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements contains general rules on exclusive purchasing agreements and special provisions for beer-supply agreements (the so-called beer block exemption) and service station agreements. This Regulation and Regulation n° 1983/83(¹) on exclusive distribution agreements both expire in December 1997. In addition the franchise block exemption is expiring at the end of 1999.

The Commission has therefore considered it useful to envisage consultations on the application of the Community competition rules on vertical restraints (the common element of the above block exemptions), and to this effect to prepare a green book on vertical restraints which will contain several possible options. This green book is currently under preparation by the Commission and thus no observations on it have yet been received.

However, in preparing the draft green book, the Commission had informal contacts with all sectors of industry. With regard to brewing, these contacts included representatives of the European federations of brewers (who have requested a renewal of the current block exemption), beer consumers and tenants. Also some individual brewers have been seen and the United Kingdom Brewers and licensed retailers federation has already forwarded a submission supporting their case for the renewal of the beer block exemption.

The consultation process on the green book has therefore not yet started. It is however the intention of the Commission to allow several months for all interested parties to make their submissions on the green book, once it has been published, and the options it contains for the future orientation of Community competition rules with regard to vertical restraints, of which exclusive beer-supply agreements form a part.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0263/96 by Irini Lambraki (PSE) to the Council (2 February 1996)

Subject: Violation of international law by Turkey

On 28 January 1996, the Turkish flag was provocatively raised on the Greek island of Imia in the Dodecanese. This followed a number of provocative statements by leading Turkish politicians.

What measures will the Council take in response to increasing provocation by the Turkish Government which is not only continuing to flout human rights but is now also, following the customs union with the EU, blatantly violating international law and the EU's external borders, thereby jeopardizing peace in the Aegean?

Joint Reply (11 June 1996)

The Council Presidency made a statement on the conflict between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea before the European Parliament on 14 February 1996. According to it the Union cannot fail to be concerned by the latest instances of friction involving, on the one hand, a Member State with which exists fundamental and strong solidarity and, on the other hand, a neighbouring country which has a key part to play in the region, and with which Europe has for decades enjoyed a relationship of dialogue and collaboration.

The Presidency noted that the matter had not been officially brought before the European Union. Accordingly, it had not undertaken any formal intervention. However, the Presidency had decided, while maintaining all appropriate contacts with Athens, to open up a channel of communication through relevant embassies that would enable it to keep in close touch with Turkey right from the initial stages of the crisis. The Presidency's aim was to promote a peaceful solution of the conflict and the normalization of bilateral relations; the first step should be to agree on a methodology to be followed in pursuit of this aim, paying special attention to the possibility of appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague or international arbitration, or a combination of these or other means.

Further, Italy was endeavouring to meet Greece's request to trace the relevant legal texts, which date back to 1932 and 1947, in a spirit of maximum solidarity with a fellow member of the European Union.

In addition, the Council would like to remind, that if need be, any member of the Council or the Commission can request for inclusion of this item on the agenda of the meeting.

It is in this framework that the Council can best contribute to confidence building between a Member State and a close cooperation partner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0880/96 by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 April 1996)

Subject: Compulsive gambling

On 13 December 1989 the Commission announced, in reply to various questions by Socialist MEP Mr Llewellyn Smith on addiction to gambling (amongst children and in general), that it did not intend to take initiatives in that field at that stage ((OJ C 303, 3.12.1990, p. 6. )).

There have since been further questions on gambling, betting and lotteries, but they have invariably referred to the law on the single market and competition rather than the addictive effect on people.

Compulsive gambling is a serious problem, and has led to the formation of a number of support organizations throughout Europe. Spain is third highest on the list of countries which spend most on gambling per year, after the United States and the Philippines, and in Catalonia alone more than 160 000 people are affected by this psycho-pathological disorder.

For these reasons does the Commission not agree that there is now a need for the Community institutions to tackle the problem of compulsive gambling, by studying the causes, prevention and treatment of this serious disorder affecting a large number of people, with serious consequences for individuals and their families, rather than confining themselves to dealing with the issue solely in terms of its impact on economic law concerning the Community single market?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)

The Commission is aware of the problems posed by gambling addiction and the damage which this behaviour does to individuals and those around them in the more serious cases.

However it is not at present possible to include this issue in its programme of public health activities, the priorities of which were fixed in its communication ((COM(93) 559 final. )) on the framework for action in the field of public health.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0989/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Year of the Pier

Is the Commission aware that 1996 is the 'Year of the Pier' and that the world's longest pleasure pier is situated at Southend, in my constituency? Will the Commission consider an initiative to mark this important event in promoting tourism in the European Union, and further consider holding such an event or initiative in Southend?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)

The Commission has taken note of the designation of 1996 as the 'Year of the Pier' and is aware of the renown of the pier at Southend.

Despite the interest of the Commission in promoting different kinds of tourism, the Commission regrets that, given its very limited resources, the priorities which have been identified for 1996 do not permit it to undertake any special promotional activity relating to piers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0943/96 by Jean-Pierre Bazin (UPE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: European Union subsidies for the MTW-Wismar shipyard

Can the Commission confirm the various reports published in the European Union press to the effect that DM 730 million in subsidies for the MTW-Wismar shipyard have been misappropriated and the Commission is currently carrying out an investigation into the matter?

The press is now reporting that the shipyard might be nationalized; so at this difficult time, coming after the bankruptcy of Bremer Vulkan, can the Commission keep the European Parliament informed of developments at Wismar and how it is applying, particularly in relation to this shipyard, Council Directive 92/68/EEC ((OJ L 219, 4.8.1992, p. 54. )) of 20 July 1992?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)

The Commission decided on 28 February 1996 to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 93 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning a spill-over of up to DM 475,7 million of aid approved for the restructuring of the MTW-shipyard to other parts of the Bremer Vulkan group, as well as on the unauthorized disbursement of an investment loan of DM 112,4 million to MTW which was subsequently used for other parts of the Bremer Vulkan group as well ((The text of this decision will be published in the Official Journal as soon as possible. )).

MTW-Schiffswerft GmbH separated from the Bremer Vulkan group at the beginning of April 1996 and is now owned by a 'Auffanggesellschaft' (temporary holding company) under state control. The German government informed the Commission of steps towards an early re-privatization of the company.

The German government and the Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern have not yet decided on the terms of the completion of the restructuring of MTW and the other former Bremer Vulkan companies in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Therefore, no notification of an envisaged aid programme has been received by the Commission yet. The Commission will investigate any notification on the basis of the legal provisions applicable for the shipbuilding sector and inform the public on the outcome in line with the well established practice in state aid cases.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0830/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (28 March 1996)

Subject: Pension fund in Gibraltar

The authorities of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar decided to wind up the Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund as of 31 December 1993, thereby affecting thousands of Spanish pensioners who lost their right to draw a pension and violating Council Regulations 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. )), 574/72 ((OJ L 74, 27.3.1972, p. 1. )) and Articles 48, 51 and 227 of the Treaty of Rome.

The European Parliament has repeatedly condemned this situation and the Commission has stated that it would ask the United Kingdom for information, with a view to taking appropriate measures.

More than two years have passed and this unjust situation has still not been remedied.

What representations has the Commission made to the United Kingdom and what results have been achieved so far?

When does the Commission expect Community law on freedom of movement and social security for migrant workers to be applied in full again and on what date does the Commission expect Spanish pensioners to be able to claim their rights once more?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that, with reference to the winding up of the Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund, it has delivered a reasoned opinion directed at the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission is currently examining the UK's response to this reasoned opinion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1099/96 by Nel van Dijk (V) and Claudia Roth (V) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Ban on marriages between two persons of the same sex and European legislation

On 16 April 1996 the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament adopted a resolution in favour of lifting the ban in the Netherlands on lawful marriages between two persons of the same sex. The Second Chamber called on the Dutch government to draft legislation as soon as possible, taking into account international, and in particular European, aspects.

Does the Commission agree that there are no obstacles under European legislation to lifting the ban on lawful marriages for persons of the same sex in the Netherlands and, possibly, in other Member States?

If the Commission does not share this belief, what obstacles are there, pursuant to European legislation, to a lifting of this ban?

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

Family law and in particular legislation concerning the capacity to marry does not fall within the Community competencies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/96 by James Moorhouse (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)

Subject: Use of the Ioannina Compromise in the Council

The Ioannina Compromise of March 1994 has, according to press reports, so far been invoked by only one Member State on one occasion, namely by the United Kingdom in October 1995 in respect of a Commission proposal allowing individual Member States to compensate farmers for income losses as a result of currency movements.

1. How many and which Member States, representing what number of votes in the Council, opposed the proposal, first during initial discussion, and then at the moment when the UK invoked the Ioannina Compromise?

2. How many and which Member States, representing what number of votes in the Council, either voted against the proposal or abstained on its final adoption?

3. What changes were made to the proposal between the time the Ioannina Compromise was invoked and the final adoption of the proposal?

4. What, if any conclusions does the Council draw from this experience about the operation in practice of the Ioannina Compromise?

Reply (11 June 1996)

It is correct, as the Honourable Member says, that the Council Decision of 29 March 1994 on qualified-majority decision-making by the Council (94/C 105/01), as amended by the Decision of 1 January 1995 (95/C 1/01), commonly known as the 'Ioannina Compromise', has so far been invoked only once, at the Council meeting on 24 and 25 October 1995, when the Council adopted Regulation No 2611/95 establishing the possibility of aid being granted in compensation for losses of agricultural income caused by monetary movements in other Member States (OJ No L 268, 10.11.1995, p. 3).

As reported in Press Release No 10469/95, the United Kingdom abstained and the Italian delegation voted against when the Regulation was adopted. Each of those two Council members has ten votes under Article 148(2) of the EC Treaty.

A solution to the problem raised by the United kingdom was thus actually found during the meeting at which the Decision of 20 March 1994 was invoked. In the Council's view, that experience shows that the Decision does not prevent the Council from operating satisfactorily.