ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/96 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Plundering of fish resources in the Mediterranean

Is the Commission aware of the serious situation caused since last April by the invasion of the central Mediterranean by more than 100 Japanese and Korean boats fishing tuna by firing special cables, almost 200 km long, equipped with weapons? The result is 'desertification' of the Mediterranean and impoverishment of traditional Sicilian fishing fleets from Mazara to Portopalo, Marsala to Sciacca, Licata to Trapani and Augusta to Acitrezza.

Will the Commission intervene by rigorously applying the provisions adopted at the conclusion of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Palermo in 1990 and solemnly confirmed by the then Commissioner, the Spaniard José Manuel Marin, as part of a common policy for the conservation of Mediterranean resources?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The Commission is aware of the alarming depletion of Mediterranean fish stocks and has introduced a rational management and conservation policy in the region, both at Community and international level.

The problems referred to by the Honourable Member, i.e. the presence of an increasing number of Japanese and Korean vessels in the region and the use of high-tech fishing methods, can be resolved only by means of cooperation between all the countries affected by fishing in the region. It is in this spirit that the Commission has launched initiatives on global cooperation in the field of fisheries, not only with neighbouring countries but also with Japan and Korea. This process got under way in December 1994 with the Crete Conference on Fisheries Management in the Mediterranean to be followed by a similar conference organized by the Commission in Venice in November 1996.

The Commission feels that multilateral cooperation and action by fishing organizations operating in the region provide the most appropriate framework for examining and resolving the problems raised by Mediterranean fishing, including those relating to the fishing effort.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2185/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Study tour of a Slovene delegation on nuclear safety aspects

The Commission's Directorate-General IA (external relations) and Directorate B (relations with Central Europe) arranged for a Slovene delegation to do a study tour of various European nuclear plants from 15-19 April 1996. The programme for the tour approximates very closely to a proposal which the European Atomic Forum (Foratom) had submitted to the Commission previously.

1. Does the Commission ever call on the Foratom organization to organize study tours or similar awareness-raising activities on the subject of nuclear energy? If not, how does the Commission explain that Foratom's proposal was taken over by the Commission virtually unchanged?

2. Who paid for this fact-finding trip, from what resources, and for exactly how much?

If the tour was financed by Foratom whether wholly or in part, what is the legal basis for this form of cooperation between the Commission and industry?

3. Who took part in the fact-finding tour and how were they chosen?

4. How does the Commission ensure that a hearing is also given to anti-nuclear positions in the course of such activities?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Questions E-2047/96, 2074/96 to 2079/96 and E-2113/96 by Mrs Gredler and others ((See page 75. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2140/96 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (3 August 1996)

Subject: Collapse of the Italian Red Cross

Would the Commission take urgent action - as a matter of meeting general requirements for social services and assistance in the event of natural disasters - to help the Italian Red Cross?

According to recent, detailed reports (cf Il Corriere della Sera of 9 July 1996, p.45), for some years now the Italian Red Cross has not been replacing nurses, ambulance crew and ambulance drivers as they retire, with the result that, over a five-year period, the services provided have been halved and all the local units formerly operating in every town are completely run down.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)

The Commission understands the Honourable Member's concern about the staff shortage faced by the Italian Red Cross. However, as this matter falls within national competence the Commission is not in a position to grant any financial assistance to this organization, so that it can recruit new staff.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2269/96 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (30 July 1996)

Subject: Implementation of the Structural Funds

In neither its annual reports nor the documents of the revenue and expenditure account and the financial statement does the Commission systematically include data by country on the implementation of the Structural Funds. Could it provide the following information for each of the funds (ESF, ERDF, EAGGF-Guidance, FIFG), the Community initiatives and the Cohesion Fund, for 1994 and 1995:

- in columns: commitment and payment appropriations (identifying in the latter those based on commitments for the financial year in question),

- in rows: fifteen, for each of the Member States, another for 'Miscellaneous' (if necessary), another for 'Non-implemented appropriations' and another for 'Total', which should be equivalent to the final available budget funding (including SAB and transfers).

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1996)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1694/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: European Observatory for SMEs

Research and development, which are vital factors in promoting competitiveness, must not be an item of expenditure which is confined to industry but must be a basic philosophy governing all aspects of business development.

Will the Commission make a special effort to achieve a more balanced distribution of resources by making the programmes already planned more effective, by closer cooperation with the Member States and the institutes for the dissemination of new technologies, or by creating greater incentives for technological innovation in SMEs, particularly given the importance of this factor in the framework of globalization?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1996)

The Commission shares the views of the Honourable Member on the need to continue the efforts undertaken under the fourth framework programme of research and technological development (R& TD) (1994-1998) to better integrate technology-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) into Community research programmes and to promote the dissemination of new technologies among all European SMEs. The lines of action suggested by the Honourable Member are in fact those already followed by the Commission as regards simplifying the procedures for programme management and for coordination with national research and innovation support policies.

The broad debate following on from the Green Paper on Innovation ((Doc. COM(95) 688. )) and the drafting of the fifth R& TD framework programme will enable the Commission to submit proposals to Parliament in the near future for improving the programmes and measures to assist SMEs in the fields of research, technological development and innovation.

In the 'Preliminary guidelines for the Fifth Framework Programme of Research and Technological Development' (COM(96) 332), the Commission selected only six priority topics, which included 'Innovation and participation of SMEs'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2283/96 by Aline Pailler (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: 1990 International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families

Can the Commission list the Member States which have ratified the 1990 International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families?

Is the number of ratifying countries sufficient for it to come into force?

What measures will the Commission propose to ensure that all the Member States ratify the convention and thus help towards its implementation?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1996)

To date, the United Nations (UN) convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families has not been ratified by any of the Member States of the Community. To bring to convention into force it has to be ratified by twenty states.

In its medium term social action programme ((COM(95) 134. )) the Commission proposed to adopt a recommendation encouraging Member States to ratify the UN convention. Preparatory work on this proposal is currently underway.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2309/96 by Josu Imaz San Miguel (PPE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Cohesion Fund - 1995

Can the Commission state what projects were approved and subsidized by the Cohesion Fund for the Spanish state in 1995, with a breakdown of funding by project?

Can it specify which projects concerned transport and the environment respectively?

Can it also provide a breakdown by Autonomous Community?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2307/96, E-2308/96 and E-2309/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1045/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: The Community Interreg II.C. and Regis II initiatives

On 4 October 1995, the Commission decided to allocate the budgetary reserve for the Community Initiatives, estimated at ECU 1665 million.

A third section was added to the Interreg II initiative (Interreg II.C.), endowed with ECU 415 million, with the objective of improving international cooperation on water management and helping create a more balanced European area in the field of spatial planning.

Water shortages, inadequate rainfall measurement and over-exploitation of aquifers are only some of the more serious problems affecting the Canary Islands and the Commission should be aware of this situation.

1. What possibility is there that the Commission might set up a programme analogous to Interreg II.C for non-frontier regions, with the purpose of fighting drought?

2. What criteria has the Commission followed when allocating the Community Initiative reserve?

3. Why has the Regis II initiative for ultra-peripheral regions not been increased?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1996)

1. Unlike the Interreg II A initiative, Interreg II C is not designed solely for transborder regions and can cover any part of the Community. However, financing for regions not eligible under Objectives 1, 2, 5b and 6 of the structural funds must not be over half the total.

All areas of Spain are therefore eligible for Interreg II aid. Part of the initiative includes measures to combat drought and it is up to the Spanish authorities to send proposals for eligible regions to the Commission.

2. In accordance with Parliament's wishes, funding from the Community Initiative Reserve is primarily shared out along thematic lines. The three main areas on which the Commission based its proposal are industrial restructuring, human resources, and urban and rural development together with spatial planning.

Account has also been taken of the guidelines set by the Edinburgh European Council and the spending limit for Objective 1. As a result, the proposal is:

- to strengthen the four industrial initiatives (Retex, Rechar, Resider and Konver) and extend them to 1999;

- to add two extra components - Emploi 'Integra' and Adapt 'a' - to the Emploi and Adapt initiatives;

- to amend the guidelines for the Urban initiative and adopt a new initiative, Interreg II C.

3. Given the above priority criteria for sharing out reserve funds, no extra money could be proposed for the Regis initiative. Significantly, however, funding for ultraperipheral areas under Objective 1 and the Regis II initiative for the period 1994-99 is more than double that allocated for the period 1989-93. In duly substantiated cases, these regions can also receive money from Community initiatives in their own Member States provided the total amount of funding for each is not exceeded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1858/96 by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Establishing the causes of mMultiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis is a relatively common disease in Europe and is so far incurable. It is not notifiable. Treatment has so far only been able to alleviate the symptoms, but not remove the causes. A register might prove helpful in establishing the causes of this disease, so as to pinpoint common factors in the incidence of this disease and to take whatever measures are required. Existing information, findings and successes in therapy could then be pooled for the benefit of all.

1. Does the Commission agree that the introduction of a register for this disease in the EU might facilitate efforts to establish the causes of this disease?

2. If so, what framework does the Commission see for drawing up such a register?

3. Does the Commission consider that the establishment of a register could reduce public health costs, since the exchange of medical findings would lead to an improvement in treatment?

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

Multiple sclerosis is the most common of the demyelinating diseases and is among the most common primary diseases of the central nervous system. As indirectly pointed out in the question there is no simple and easy explanation about the onset and the early pathogenesis of the disease. It is also generally accepted that the treatment is mostly palliative and not directed to the causation.

Monitoring and surveillance of cases of multiple sclerosis can be of value in describing the frequency and the geographical distribution of the disease but is of little help in establishing its aetiology. Moreover, reporting on the disease can only be effected from the time of appearance of clinical symptoms which is usually a long time after onset. This further diminishes the usefulness of reporting in the research of causes, as does the multifactorial nature of the disease.

For these reasons the Commission has no intention to promote the creation of registers for multiple sclerosis. Moreover, the development of appropriate indicators to assist in the planning and allocation of resources and evaluation of programmes and activities may be supported under the proposed programme on health monitoring on which the Council has already adopted a common position.

As for the possibility of making multiple sclerosis a notifiable disease this is only done for diseases with a defined aetiology and pathogenesis and in most cases the diseases are communicable.

The Commission is following the developments in this area with interest and has supported the research in this area through the four medical and health research programme (MHRs) and the two biomedical and health research programmes (Biomed 1 and 2).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2121/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Veterinary inspections on British farms to detect cases of BSE

The plan adopted to control and eradicate BSE provides for a detailed study to be carried out by a vet on each farm where BSE cases are detected, so as to identify all the animals to be slaughtered on the basis of epidemiological tests.

Who are the 'authorities' in the UK responsible for imposing this requirement and, should they fail to do so, what civil liability do they incur under British law?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)

The state veterinary service, which is part of the Ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, is the authority responsible for imposing the requirement for an epidemiological study.

The Commission cannot advise on liability incurred under English law for a possible breach of this duty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2125/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Waste dump at Grumolo delle Abbadesse (Veneto)

On 30 May 1995, by decision No. 3092, the Veneto Region approved once again the proposal to site a dump for the disposal of municipal or similar solid waste in the commune of Grumolo delle Abbadesse, near Sarmego.

The project had already been approved on 30 July 1993, but had been blocked on 24 November 1994 by the Veneto Regional Administrative Tribunal, whose decision was confirmed on 7 April 1995 by the State Council on the grounds that:

- the proposal made no provision for adequate waterproofing and hence adequate protection of the water table, the upper limit of which lies above the lowest level of the proposed dump;

- the report on compatibility did not comply with the Ministry of the Environment's decree No. 559/87 implementing Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) on environmental impact assessment.

The new decision was based on a later study which did not comply with the requirements laid down in the directive on environmental impact assessment and rehashed the previous compatibility study, in view of which the Veneto Regional Administrative Tribunal, on 27 March 1996, once again suspended the Region's decision.

Since the Veneto Regional Council has expressed its determination to continue constructing the waste dump come what may, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the proposed dump complies with both the directive on environmental impact assessment and the directive on waste (91/156/EEC) ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. )), which was supposed to enter into force on 1 April 1993?

More generally, what action does it intend to take to ensure that Italy complies with the two directives in question, which have already been flouted on many occasions?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 September 1996)

From the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission notes that the Italian courts have twice suspended decisions by the Veneto Region concerning the waste dump in question. It will contact the Italian authorities in connection with this case and will take appropriate action.

With regard to Directive 91/156/EEC, the Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against Italy under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2152/96 by Mark Killilea (UPE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Banning of driftnet tuna by Basque fisheries

Can the Commission comment on a report which appeared in the fishing industry journal 'Le Marin', of 28 June 1996, which states that as a result of a boycott no French or Irish albacore tuna caught with driftnets will be accepted by canneries in the Spanish Basque region for the coming season?

What action does the Commission suggest should be taken to ensure that such restriction of the market for tuna catch is not allowed to take place?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1996)

No complaint has been received by the Commission relating to the point raised by the Honourable Member.

As to the substance of the report, the Commission stresses that in refusing to accept certain categories of product for its supply of raw materials, the canning industry has not acted contrary to any current legislation, provided that such action does not constitute a barrier to the free movement of goods.

The Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for further information.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2203/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Position of the Commission regarding the creation of a CFSP Secretariat

A number of prominent European political figures have called for the CFSP to have a Secretariat of its own, with a specific status, which would operate under the direction of the Council and play a similar role with regard to the common foreign and security policy to that played by the Commission with regard to Community policies: identifying the common interest, proposing decisions, monitoring their implementation and representing the Union at international meetings which are not the responsibility of the Council.

This arrangement would require a redefinition of certain areas of international relations, in conjunction with the Commission, so as to preserve overall consistency and prevent an artificial separation or a serious lack of coordination between economic and monetary policy and foreign and security policy.

Can the Commission state its position on the above proposal, which is supported by numerous pro-European political figures?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1996)

In its opinion on preparations for the intergovernmental conference, ((Doc. COM(96) 90. )) the Commission took the view that the Council Presidency and Commission should ensure effective cooperation between the two institutions responsible in their different ways for the Union's foreign policy. For the sake of consistency, continuity and efficiency, it is vital that such cooperation is maintained from the moment common foreign and security policies are drafted right up to the adoption and implementation stages.

Greater clarity in this area could bolster interinstitutional dialogue and make external action more consistent, as recommended in Article C of the Union Treaty.

Strengthening the Council Secretariat to give the Presidency the support it undoubtedly needs could not, however, result in the creation of a new institution. The Secretariat's role cannot be divorced from that of the Council Presidency.

In any case, the creation of a separate secretariat general for common foreign and security policy (CFSP) could represent a step back to the time before the Union Treaty, which set up a single institutional framework for the Union. There is no way such a secretariat could take the place of the Council Presidency-Commission 'tandem', which is still vital in ensuring that the various areas of foreign policy keep in step with each other.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2110/96 by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Alqueva dam

In order to be used in large-scale irrigation, the water of Alqueva will have to be elevated about 100 meters, which will make it very expensive. In the current market situation such cost of the water will make irrigation economically unprofitable.

Has the Commission evaluated the possibility of financing a smaller dam, which would fulfil Alqueva's objectives other than the large-scale irrigation, while preparing the structure for raising the dam in the future, in case the prices for farm products make irrigation economically feasible?

This would result in substantial savings in the construction and minimize the environmental impact of the project, while keeping all its potential.

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)

The Alqueva project submitted by the Portuguese authorities provides for the construction of a hydroelectric power station that would produce the amount of energy needed for the area to be irrigated.

Going on the technical and economic data provided by the Portuguese authorities and the additional expert studies carried out, there is no guarantee that the building of one or more small dams would meet objectives in terms of irrigation, community water supply and overall economic development in the Alqueva area.