ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0134/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 February 1996)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados Carvalhos

In reply to my questions Nos 2804/94 ((OJ C 139, 5.6.1995, p. 32. ))and 1861/95 ((OJ C 311, 22.11.1995, p. 19. )), Commissioner Bjenegard claimed on 21 September 1995 that the Commission had examined the observations forwarded by the Portuguese authorities and believed that 'further information was necessary'. As a result, the Commission had contacted the Portuguese authorities 'once more'.

Has the Commission received further explanations in connection with the possible violation of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) with regard to the way in which the environmental impact assessment of the building work on the IP1 between Freixo and Vilados Carvalhos was carried out? If so, are these explanations satisfactory? If they are not, what is the Commission going to do?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 April 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his written questions E-2804/94 ((OJ C 139, 5.6.1995. )) and E-1861/95 ((OJ C 311, 22.11.1995. )) where it stated that it had examined the observations forwarded by the Portuguese authorities, and believed that 'further information was necessary'.

Indeed, the Portuguese authorities had been contacted, and the Commission received additional information which, on examination and evaluation, was judged insufficient.

Consequently, following further requests to the Portuguese authorities for more detailed information (February 1996), and to which the Commission, to date, has not received a reply, it regrets that it is not possible to give a definitive reply concerning the above-mentioned written question.

As direct contacts have now been established between the Commission and the Portuguese authorities to resolve this matter, the Commission will inform the Honourable Member as soon as it receives the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0151/96 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (1 February 1996)

Subject: Regional and cohesion policy

Between the end of July and the beginning of September 1995, 25 programmes were adopted under the Leader II initiative on rural development, to a value of ECU 613.3 m from the EAGGF, ERDF and ESF structural funds.

Can the Commission provide detailed specifications of the various projects submitted and of the bodies which submitted them?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 February 1996)

As the Honourable Member notes, the Commission, in Decisions Nos 1309/1 to 1309/17 of 27 July 1995, approved the regional programmes for implementation of the Community Leader II initiative in the 17 autonomous communities of Spain, for the period 30 October 1994 to 31 December 1999.

Below are the figures for the 17 programmes approved (1994-99):

(million ECU, rounded up)

>TABLE>

These programmes were drawn up by the competent departments of the regional governments, in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Communication No 94/C180/12 of 15 June 1994 addressed to the Member States.

Once the programmes have been approved, the competent national and regional authorities select the projects and beneficiaries (local action groups and other players involved in the community) in accordance with the Leader criteria (the project has to be innovative from a local point of view, and act as an example for a wider range of local groups, so that the experience can be passed on to other rural areas).

As a rule, the Commission is no longer involved in the actual selection of the local groups. It will subsequently be informed of the final choice of beneficiaries by the monitoring committees which are due to meet soon.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Environmental protection on the Akamas peninsular in Cyprus

According to a World Bank study funded by the European Union, the Akamas peninsula, a biotope of major importance for the entire Mediterranean, is classified as a fully protected area where restrictions are imposed on building and all forms of development. Furthermore, the Akamas peninsula is included in the environment section of the Cypriot Government's application for accession to the European Union. However, there have been disturbing reports of large-scale tourist development projects in the area, the granting of planning permission for major tourist facilities and adoption of new plans for the region's road network, which would result in the destruction of large areas of unspoilt countryside and farmland.

Following the conclusion of the EU-Cyprus Association Agreement, is the Commission able to promote more effective environmental protection measures on the Akamas peninsula by means of the financial aid earmarked for Cyprus?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0400/96 and E-0464/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

The Commission is not in a position to discuss with the Government of Cyprus the matters mentioned by the Honourable Members. The projects cited are in fact the jurisdiction of the state of Cyprus.

The conversion of Akamas into a national park has not been part of discussions in the framework of the structured dialogue with Cyprus on environment, nor has such an issue has been included in the context of Cyprus harmonization with the acquis communautaire.

The fact that the Commission can not interfere with the decisions of the government of Cyprus does not mean it is not attentive to the matter. The Commission delegation in Cyprus, which verifies the correct implementation of the Community's projects in Akamas, will follow the question with particular attention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0919/96 by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Simplification of export subsidies for food products

Food products are exported from Finland to Russia with EU export subsidies. The consignments concerned can be very small, particularly in the case of those despatched to neighbouring regions, for example those supplied by meat processors direct to individual shops. Each consignment must be notified separately, which involves considerable paperwork. For example one Finnish food supplier had to complete a form concerning a consignment on which 1.43 Finnish marks was paid in export subsidy. The cost of processing the form is many times greater than this.

In view of the above, what will the Commission do to simplify the inconvenient and costly bureaucracy involved in exporting foodstuffs to neighbouring areas of third countries so as to avoid the necessity of submitting a separate notification for each consignment?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1996)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0088/96 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Council (30 January 1996)

Subject: Cooperation between SMEs through networks for joint purchases and sales

In its resolution of 10 October 1994 ((OJ C 294, 22.10.1994, p. 6. )), the Council 'calls upon the Member States and the Commission to examine... to what extent the legal provisions of the Member States and of the Community could place a specific extra burden on SMEs, by... examining the possibilities for cooperation between SMEs (for example, cooperation in networks for purchases and sales) in the framework of Community competition law'.

Following its proposal of a general plan for SMEs at the Madrid Summit, has the Commission informed the Council of the specific measures it has taken in line with the Council Resolution of 10 October 1994?

Is the Council aware of whether the Commission, in the context of its green paper on vertical agreements (exclusive purchase and sales, selective distribution, franchising), intends to consider all the aspects of cooperation in networks for joint purchases and sales in the framework of Community competition law?

If not, has the Council been informed of how the Commission will in effect reply to the Council's question concerning this specific issue?

Reply (20 May 1996)

1. To date the Council has not been informed of the specific measures the Commission intends to take to implement the Resolution of 10 October 1994 on giving full scope to the dynamism and innovatory potential of SMEs, including the craft sector and micro-enterprises, in a competitive economy. ((OJ No 294, 11.10.1994, p. 6. ))

2. The Council has not yet received the green paper on vertical agreements nor has it been informed as to how the Commission will respond to the Council's call in that Resolution to examine the possibilities for cooperation between SMEs in the framework of Community competition law.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0449/96 by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Commission (16 February 1996)

Subject: Common fisheries policy - Inshore fishermen

How many flagships does each individual Member State of the EU have on its fishing register?

What is the amount in ECU and the number of fines imposed on fishermen from France, Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium, fishing from boats under 12 metres? Could the Commission also provide statistics for 1994 and 1995 on prosecutions and fines imposed in France, Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium?

In the light of these statistics, will the Commission comment on the level of penalties imposed by Member States' courts on inshore fishermen under the Common Fisheries Policy?

Would the Commission consider recommending a scale of maximum and minimum fines to be imposed equally by all Member States?

What measures is the Commission taking to ensure that the Common Fisheries Policy is fairly and equally implemented in all Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (20 March 1996)

The fishing vessel register of the Community ((Regulation (EEC) N° 163/89 - OJ L 20, 25.1.1989 - replaced by Regulation (EC) N° 109/94 - OJ L 19, 22.1.1994. )) shows that on 1 January 1996 the number of fishing vessels in each Member State was:

>TABLE>

(*) France: only for the mainland

Regulation (EEC) N° 2847/93 of the Council of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy ((OJ L 261 of 20.10.1993. )) is enforced by the Member States through controls both at sea and ashore.

The Commission for its part ensures that existing Community legislation is fully implemented by all Member States and that Member States do not discriminate in their application of Community law. In order to carry out this task, the Commission employs a number of fishery inspectors who monitor and report on the activities carried out by national authorities. Moreover, the Commission uses the procedures provided in the EC Treaty for ensuring full compliance of Member States with their Treaty obligations.

Furthermore, in conformity with Article 35 of the above Regulation, the Commission will adopt in the coming days a report on monitoring the common fisheries policy, which will be transmitted to the Council and the Parliament. This report addresses precisely the questions raised by the Honourable Member and provides relevant statistics.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1092/96 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Illegal sacking of 88 foreign lecturers at Naples University

Does the Commission not consider that the illegal sacking of 88 foreign lecturers by the authorities of Naples University merits an infringement procedure against the Italian state for its continual failure to implement European law in defiance of two judgments of the European Court of Justice and two resolutions of the European Parliament?

What action will the Commission take to ensure that these 88 foreign lecturers are immediately reinstated without prejudice and without fear of repercussions?

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

The Commision is fully aware of the problems in Naples raised by the Honourable Member and a specific complaint concerning the Instituto Orientale Universitario has been made by the lecturers themselves. In addition, a report by an independent expert on the situation of language lecturers in Italian universities, carried out for the Commission, established that language lecturers in Naples have been offered only fixed-term contacts, in direct contradiction with Community law.

The Commission has recently contacted the Italian authorities in the framework of the infringement proceedings started in 1992, in order to request clarifications on the present situation of foreign language lectureres in Italian univeristies, and to raise specifically the issue of the Instituto Orientale Universitario. It will keep this problem under close review and will decide on the most appropriate action to take in the light of the response from the Italian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0208/96 by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission (5 February 1996)

Subject: Objective 2 - Belgium - Wallonia - Would the Commission provide the following information regarding Objective 2 for Wallonia:

1. What is the complete list of projects proposed to date by the Region of Wallonia in this framework?

2. Have all the projects been accepted by the Commission?

3. What stage have the projects which have been accepted reached, and what is the exact amount of Commission aid in each case?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1996)

The areas of Wallonia eligible under Objective 2 are the Aubange and Liege areas since 1989 and the Charleroi area from 1989 to 1993, with the province of Hainaut, in which Charleroi is situated, granted Objective 1 eligibility for the period 1994-99. Amounts (ECU million) relating to Objective 2 programmes are set out in the table below.

>TABLE>

ERDF: European Regional Development Fund. ESF: European Social Fund.

Programming is one of the principles underlying the 1988 reform of the Structural Funds. According to that principle Community assistance takes the form of the cofinancing of multiannual programmes.

Selection of individual projects within the programmes approved by the Commission is a matter for the regional authorities responsible for implementing them. Since 1989 hundreds of projects have been implemented in this way in a great variety of fields.

Management and general administrative coordination of these programmes are provided by the Directorate-General of Economic Affairs and Employment, Ministry for the Walloon Region (Place de la Wallonie 1-5100 Jambes). The Commission suggests that the Honourable Member approach that authority direct for the precise information sought on all aided projects, progress with them and the amounts involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0970/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: CEMR Conference of Women Elected Representatives

The final statement of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) Conference of Women Elected Representatives of Local and Regional Authorities held in Dublin in 1995 called for the promotion of legislative action in equal opportunities for men and women at decision-making levels and ensure equal representation of women within European institutions - what action will the Commission take as a result of this resolution?

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

Regarding the promotion of legislative action in equal opportunities in decision-making, the Commission has presented a proposal for a Council Recommendation ((COM(95) 593 final. )), which is currently being discussed by the Council. Parliament too is in the process of drawing up a report and an opinion on the Commission's proposal.

In its proposal, the Commission refers specifically to political representation at regional and local levels (point 4.b).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0373/96 by Luigi Caligaris (UPE) to the Commission (13 February 1996)

Subject: Trieste and the 'Adriatic Corridor' project

Because of its geographical position, the city of Trieste can be said to constitute a natural meeting point with Central, Eastern, and southern Europe, and the Mediterranean.

Advantageously placed as it is within the multimodal transport network that the 'Adriatic Corridor' project is intended to set up, the Trieste area is particularly well suited to act as a gateway to the natural Central European hinterland, for traffic bound for Eastern Europe, and as a port of call for shipping heading for the Mediterranean.

In anticipation of the forthcoming decision by Parliament and the Council on the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, what prospects exist, in the Commission's opinion, for expansion of land and sea transport infrastructure in Trieste?

Can the Commission also say, given the current state of play, what kind of connections are likely to be provided to link Trieste to the 'Adriatic Corridor' project as a whole?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (14 March 1996)

The city of Trieste and the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region are concerned about the priority project high speed train combined transport France-Italy (Lyon-Turin-Verona-Venice-Trieste). The Community programme of pilot actions for combined transport (PACT) has already contributed to the improvement of links with Greece and this action will continue. In addition, as far as maritime transport is concerned, the Community is committed to the promotion of short-sea shipping as an effective and environmentally-friendly means of transport.

The so-called Adriatic corridor project represents an alternative route to link the central regions of the Community and Italy to Greece and the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin, avoiding the inland route through the former Yugoslavia. It integrates rail and road infrastructure, ports, links to ports and combined transport along the Adriatic coast, from Trieste to Brindisi.

In 1995, the Community provided 1 MECU to finance a feasibility study for the Adriatic corridor. The aim of the study is to provide decision makers with a range of technically feasible and economically viable options for the improvement of transport services in the corridor, with particular emphasis on existing infrastructures. The study will also assist in the development of studies on the necessary investment so that a scenario for further action can be defined.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/96 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Exchange of non-university teachers under the Socrates programme

According to Action 1 of the Socrates programme on school associations for the development of European educational projects there are grants available to facilitate exchanges of teachers for a maximum period of four weeks.

In the case of the United Kingdom it is extremely difficult, if not to say virtually impossible, to organize such exchanges since applications from other Community countries have been blocked on the basis of a statement by the authorities concerned to the effect that there are no teachers available for such exchanges.

Does the Commission not consider that the reasons why applications from other Community countries have been blocked should be investigated? What action is the Commission planning to take in order to solve this problem, which runs counter to the spirit of the Socrates programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1996)

In the framework of the first year (1995-1996) of the implementation of Comenius Action 1 all the Member States participated in the teacher exchanges provided for in the partnerships between European schools, without reporting any particular difficulties.

The United Kingdom proposed 113 teacher exchanges (out of a quota of 100) and Spain proposed 94 (out of a quota of 80).

However, the Commission will contact the national agencies responsible for this decentralised measure in order to ensure its smooth implementation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0220/96 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Council (12 February 1996)

Subject: Restrictions on the rights of minorities in Greek schools

In Greece, schooling is compulsory for nine years. This is not the case, however, for children of the Turkish minority in Greece. There are two Turkish secondary schools in Western Thrace, one in Komotini and one in Xanthi.Hitherto, primary school-leavers have sat an examination in order to be able to attend these schools. Places are now to be allocated not on the basis of the entrance examination, but by drawing lots to select 60 and 30 pupils respectively for the schools in Komotini and Xanthi. This means that only 9% of Turkish children, selected by lot, can attend secondary school.

1. Does the Council consider the measures introduced by the Greek authorities to be compatible with the obligation imposed by the Treaties to preserve the EU's multicultural character?

2. If not, what action does it intend to take to effectively counter such restrictive measures, which are at odds with the basic European principle?

Reply (3 June 1996)

Article 126(1) of the Treaty on European Union provides in particular that 'the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education..... while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity'.

It is therefore not for the Council to intervene as regards the way in which education is organized by a Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0778/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1996)

Subject: Price entry system

The Commission has agreed to import at a reduced rate for 1996 a certain quantity of oranges from third countries for the production of fresh orange juice. On a proposal by Commissioner Franz Fishler, the Commission decided to open a tariff quota of 12 000 tonnes, valid until the end of March, for which the entry price will be reduced by around ECU 10 per 100 kg compared to the normal entry price of ECU 36.9/100 kg.

The action was taken following representation from the orange juice industry in the UK to the Commission. The fresh juice industry is unable to source suitable material on a year-round basis from within the EU and has to source from third countries for the period from December to May. Due to the application of entry prices on oranges under the GATT agreement, it was no longer possible to ensure an adequate supply of oranges for the production of fresh orange juice. The loss of this industry could directly affect the employment of 5700 people in the UK.

What action is the Commission proposing to take for 1997 to ensure that oranges intended for processing are imported at a reduced entry price from third countries? Could the Commission take action to ensure that in 1997, the fresh juice industry in the UK and throughout Europe can purchase oranges destined for squeezing from third countries at a reduced entry price for the full period in which they are unable to source them from the EU i.e. December to May?

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

In January of this year the Commission took a transitional measure, Regulation (EC) n° 37/96 ((OJ L 9, 12.1.1996. )), opening a quota at a reduced entry price for 12 000 tonnes of oranges imported for processing during the period from 1 December 1995 until 31 March 1996.

At the moment, the Commission is making inquiries in the producer Member States in order to check the availability of the varieties of oranges requested by the United Kingdom industry for the production of freshly squeezed juice.

The Commission will examine the results of these inquiries and propose the appropriate measures for the future.