ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1284/96 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Implementation of budget line B3-4004

In previous years, budget line B3-4004, which is intended to cover, among other things, 'the promotion of meetings between representatives of the employees and employers in companies and groups of companies' covered by Council Directive 94/45/EC ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64. )), was available from 1 March.

This year, however, it appears that the payees are still waiting. This hold-up is worrying since it hampers the normal development of dialogue between employers and workers.

What has caused the delay, what will the Commission do to remedy the situation and how long will it take?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1996)

The delay in this year's execution of budget-line B3-4004 was linked to the problem of the budgetary consequences of the United Kingdom opt-out from the social chapter and, in this context, the question of whether and to what extent United Kingdom-based companies and organisations can receive funding on the basis of budget-line B3-4004.

A global solution to this problem has been found which will involve line B3-4004 being implemented in two separate parts:

- expenditure directly related to the implementation of Directive 94/45/EC in 14 Member States and to its transposition into law. Because of the opt-out, projects from the United Kingdom cannot be financed from this expenditure;

- expenditure not directly related to the Directive but which is aimed at promoting information and consultation of employees and employers in a wider sense and in all 15 Member States.

The 1996 user's guide which is now available sets out the detailed criteria for this approach.

The Commission may propose to the budgetary authority a supplementary and amending 1996 budget (SAB) in order to formalise the above approach. However, this will not hamper the implementation of line B3-4004 which will be commenced without further delay.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/96 by Hadar Cars (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Regional policy beyond 2000

By how much would the budget have to be increased if the present structural funds regime were to be applied to X new Member States without punishing the regions presently benefiting from support?

If the budget for the structural funds is not increased when X ((X = Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.)) new states become members, which regions would be entitled to support:

1. under prolongation of the present regime?

2. if unemployment, instead of GNP, were to be used as a parameter?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1996)

The existing level of structural aid to underdeveloped regions - a category generally held to cover the Central and East European candidates for accession as well - cannot be used as a starting point for future proposals regarding the budget for structural policy towards prospective members.

Most regions eligible for Objective 1 funding in the fifteen existing Member States have been receiving structural fund support for ten years or more, so present transfer levels reflect a lengthy process of incremental increase. The same is bound to happen with the applicant countries, which will be unable, in the first few years of membership, to absorb structural funds in excess of a tiny percentage of GDP, partly because, both in macro-economic terms and administratively, they will lack the capacity to handle the part-financing requirements.

The future eligibility of regions in the existing Member States in the event of enlargement will depend on various imponderables including the actual date of accession of individual applicant countries, possible changes to the rules governing eligibility (one such being the use of unemployment as a parameter, as suggested by the Honourable Member), progress towards convergence in the interim by regions currently receiving support, and the relative wealth of the applicant countries at the time, something which is still far from clear.

It is therefore idle at this stage to speculate about the structural fund budget or regional eligibility criteria beyond 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0807/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Mycotoxins

Following its discussion document, what plans does the Commission have to introduce EC legislation controlling the presence of mycotoxins in food?

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

Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food ((OJ L 37, 13.2.1993. )), provides that maximum levels may be set for certain contaminants in foods in order to protect public health and to avoid barriers to trade within the internal market due to differences in maximum levels laid down in national legislation.

Mycotoxins, such as aflatoxins and ochratoxin A, which may be present as contaminants in certain foods under certain circumstances, fall within the scope of this Regulation. The Commission is studying these matters as a matter of priority. The scientific committee for food was consulted by the Commission under Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 and delivered its opinion on 23 September 1994 ((Thirty-fifth Series of Opinions of the Scientific Committee for Food (in print). )).

Finally, in the scientific cooperation framework of Council Directive 93/5/EEC of 25 February 1993 on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food ((OJ L 52, 4.3.1993. )), under Commission Decision 95/142/EC ((OJ L 92, 25.4.1995. )) of 11 April 1995 amending Commission Decision 94/652/EC establishing the inventory and distribution of tasks to be undertaken within the framework of cooperation by Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food, tasks on aflatoxins and ochratoxin A are currently being finalised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0803/96 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Council (12 April 1996)

Subject: Participation by constitutionally recognised regions at the IGC

'Agence Europe' No. 6679 of Saturday, 2 March 1996 says that the Italian Presidency has recently announced the programme for the intergovernmental conference whose task is to evaluate and, if necessary, revise the Treaty on European Union.

An extraordinary European Council will be held from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 29 March 1996 in Turin. The IGC itself will begin at 4 p.m. During the Italian Presidency, which runs until the end of June 1996, there will be three meetings at ministerial level: on 22 April, 13 May and 10 June. These meetings will coincide with the General Affairs Council. There will be ten meetings at ministerial representative level: on 1 and 2 April, 15 and 16 April and 21 and 22 May on citizenship; on 23 and 24 April, 2 and 3 May and 30 and 31 May on the Institutions; on 6 and 7 May, 14 and 15 May and 6 and 7 June on foreign policy. A tenth meeting, to consider the interim report to be submitted to the European Council in Florence, will be held on 17 June.

1. Will regions with constitutionally recognised powers (e.g. German Länder and Belgian regions and communities) be represented at the opening of the IGC?

2. In what way will such regions be involved in the work of the IGC

a) at the meetings at ministerial level?

b) at the ten meetings of ministerial representatives'?

3. Will each of the regions be able to make its own views known about the IGC at these fourteen meetings? If not, how will their views be considered at the IGC? If the answer is in the affirmative, will they have the right to speak at the abovementioned meetings?

Reply (16 July 1996)

The Honourable Member is undoubtedly aware that the Council of the European Union is not a participant in the Intergovernmental Conference. It is for the Member States to determine the composition of their delegations to the Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1043/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Failure of the Spanish Government to comply with the Directive on minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace

How does the Commission view the Spanish Government's failure, in the context of employment, labour relations and social affairs, to comply with Directive 89/654/EEC ((OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p.18 )) on minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1041/96, E-1042/96, E-1043/96 and E-1044/96 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)

The Honourable Member should consult the Commission's Thirteenth Annual Report to the Parliament on monitoring the application of Community law - 1995 ((COM(96) 600 )), and notably the annex 'State of application of the directives', which will shortly be transmitted to Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/96 by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Crisis in the CAP

Does the Commission agree that the agreements on free trade in agricultural products concluded with third countries by the European Union as a whole or by individual Member States are in danger of plunging the whole Common Agricultural Policy,and hence the Community preference system itself, into crisis?

Does the Commission agree that it is odd, to say the least, that free trade agreements of this kind are concluded with countries whose agricultural production is similar to that of the Mediterranean countries, whose products, incidentally, are among those receiving the least protection and subsidies under the CAP?

Does the Commission agree that it is worrying that by means of this series of agreements the European Union places at a disadvantage mainly those agricultural economies that are already afflicted by structural and marketing deficiencies and are characterized by the small or medium-sized undertakings that are so important for the preservation both of the ecosystem and of social and cultural traditions and identity?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 May 1996)

In addition to participating in the multilateral trading process through its membership of the GATT (General agreement on tariffs and trade), the Community maintained and developed a number of bilateral trade agreements. Following the successful completion of the multilateral Uruguay Round, the Community is seeking to improve and widen the scope of bilateral trading agreements.

In considering trade in agricultural products, it should be borne in mind that not only is the Community the largest single importer, it is also the world's second largest exporter of such products.

When negotiating trade agreements the Commission and, when approving the results the Council, take appropriate account of the socio-economic factors cited by the Honourable Member. In particular, in 1992, the Council approved a series of reforms to the common market organisations and a series of accompanying measures designed to protect the specificity of European agriculture and the rural world.

For a limited number of agricultural sectors not covered by the 1992 reforms (in particular rice, fruit and vegetables, and wine), the Commission has tabled initiatives in pursuit of the 1992 reform process. In the case of rice, the Council approved reform proposals in December 1995. For the other sectors discussions are continuing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0998/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: European Information Centre in Essex

Does the Commission accept that its current European Information Centres in Norwich and London do not provide advisory services to businesses in Essex?

Will the Commission either set up a European Information Centre in Essex or undertake consultation with the Libraries Service of Essex County Council, in order to award their Information Relay formal status as a European Information Centre in its own right?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1996)

The European information centres (EICs) in Norwich and London certainly have provided information and advisory services to business in Essex, although in view of the size of their target population and the distances involved, they have acknowledged the necessity to work with partners in the county.

The setting up of EICs can only take place within the framework of the relevant legislation and procedures. The Essex county council library service has been advised to undertake discussions with the Norwich European information centre with a view to becoming part of the EIC's sub-network enabling them to use both the logo and name associated with the network.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/96 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Employment of people with disabilities

The main objective of Decision 93/136/EEC ((OJ L 56, 9.3.1993, p. 30 )) establishing a third Community Action Programme to assist disabled people (Helios II 1993-1996) is to promote equal opportunities for and the integration of people with disabilities.

The candidates' guide to the selection procedure in an open competition for the scientific service mentions equal opportunities for men and women but makes no mention whatever of integrating people with disabilities.

Does the Commission not consider that the need to promote such integration should also be stated?

Can the Commission also state what percentage of people with disabilities currently work in the Commission in relation to the number of applications submitted by disabled people?

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

In accordance with the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, the Commission pursues a recruitment policy based on equal opportunities. Officials and servants are selected without reference to race, creed or sex. This policy in particular aims at ensuring equal opportunities among men and women.

In addition, the Commission strives to do all that is possible to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities in its competitions. There is a dispensation from the age limit for candidates with officially recognised physical disabilities, and candidates are requested to specify on application forms any special dispensation they consider necessary in order to take part in the tests. The objective is to ensure at all times that disabled candidates can compete under the same conditions as other candidates.

A disabled official's working environment and equipment are tailored to his/her particular disability in order to ensure optimal conditions for his/her professional development.

Within the Commission a working group has been set up to develop a code of practice for the employment of people with disabilities. The aim is to reform policy in this area.

Unfortunately the information requested by the Honourable Member cannot be provided as statistics indicating the percentage of people with disabilities currently working in the Commission, in relation to the number of applications submitted by disabled people, have not been compiled.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1154/96 by Luigi Florio (UPE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Statement by Mr Santer in Bangkok

Can the Commission confirm the truth of Barbara Spinelli's claim in her leading article published in the Italian daily La Stampa on 12 April 1996 that the Commission President, Mr Santer, stated at the Euro-Asia Conference in Bangkok on 1 March this year, and I quote: 'We do not intend to provoke any disputes on human rights: it will only be possible to speak frankly on these matters when bridges have been built and alliances forged.'

If so, what is the exact significance of this statement, which appears to fly in the face of the policy of respecting and spreading human rights, which has always been upheld by the democracies belonging to the EU?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)

In the Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) in Bangkok and thereafter, the Commission President emphasised that discussions on human rights between Europe and Asia must continue in a spirit of constructive dialogue rather than conflictual criticism.

This approach made it possible for the Bangkok summit to address directly these issues in plenary as well as in bilateral discussions, notwithstanding a prior hesitation on the part of certain Asian countries to address issues they felt to be controversial. Some examples include the discussions between the heads of state or government of France and China, and of Portugal and Indonesia, the inclusion in the chairman's statement of the Bangkok meeting of references to the Universal declaration on human rights and to the Vienna Declaration, and the particular commitment of all participants in the Bangkok meeting (also mentioned in the chairman's statement) to a strengthened political dialogue and deepened cooperation between Asia and Europe in a broad range of areas including the promotion of fundamental rights. This dialogue will certainly be developed further in future contacts with the ASEM partners, permitting these essential issues to be approached in a positive and constructive fashion.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1305/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (22 May 1996)

Subject: Arrest of four journalists in Turkey

1. Is the Commission aware of the fact that in the night of 3 May, four Turkish journalists on the Turkish weekly 'Alinteri', namely Sabiha Budak, Filiz Uziurk, Mehtap Kuruçay and Incigul Basel, were arrested?

2. Is the Commission aware that Incigul Basel was later taken to a hospital, and that it was there suspected that she had been tortured?

3. Is the Commission aware that the whereabouts of the other three journalists are unknown, and that it has frequently happened in the past that Turkish citizens who have been arrested have subsequently disappeared?

4. Will the Commission now act promptly to ask the Turkish authorities for clarification of these arrests, having regard in particular to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been transposed into Turkish law and guarantees freedom of expression?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1996)

The Commission has asked the Turkish authorities for information concerning the events described by the Honourable Member.

The information will be forwarded by the Commission to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1002/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Socioeconomic problems suffered by new towns in the European Union

What studies has the Commission undertaken or is aware of, on the socioeconomic problems encountered by post-1945 'new towns' in the European Union? Does the Commission accept that such towns suffer common problems of system-built housing, over-dependency on large companies and social exclusion, which require a response at European level?

Which organizations, both within Member States and at European level, is the Commission in discussion with regarding these issues?

Does it plan any initiatives in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1996)

The post-1945 'new towns' mentioned by the Honourable Member have been taken into account, along with many other cases, within the studies 'Europe 2000 - Outlook for the development of the Community's territory' and 'Europe 2000+ - Cooperation for European territorial development'.

The Commission is aware of the socio-economic problems suffered by several cities throughout the Community. These problems are not specific to the 'new towns'.

The recent Community initiative Urban offers an opportunity to take action at European level in order to improve living conditions in difficult neighbourhoods. The Commission is also considering whether, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, there could be scope for further action at European level with a view to strengthening the urban dimension in existing Community activities. In this context, a communication of the Commission on urban issues is envisaged by the end of 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1044/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Failure of the Spanish Government to comply with the Directive on improving the safety and health of workers at work

How does the Commission view the Spanish Government's failure, in the context of employment, labour relations and social affairs, to comply with Directive 89/391/EEC ((OJ L 183, 29.62.1989, p.1 )) on improvements in the safety and health of workers at work?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1041/96, E-1042/96, E-1043/96 and E-1044/96 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)

The Honourable Member should consult the Commission's Thirteenth Annual Report to the Parliament on monitoring the application of Community law - 1995 ((COM(96) 600 )), and notably the annex 'State of application of the directives', which will shortly be transmitted to Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0912/96 by Hilde Hawlicek (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Implementation of Council Decision 84/819/EC by the Commission

Council Decision 94/819/EC ((OJ L 340, 29.12.1994, p.8 )) introduced an action programme for the implementation of a European Community vocational training policy and a call for tenders was published in the Official Journal of 24 May 1995 ((OJ C 128, 24.5.1995, p. 14 )). On 1 December 1995 a number of projects were selected by the Leonardo committee working within the Commission's DG XXII. In January 1996 the tenderers were informed by the Commission in writing that their tenders had been selected and that they could expect project contracts with retroactive effect from 1 December 1995 to be concluded.

The Leonardo da Vinci technical support office led the project coordinators to expect that the German versions of the contracts would be forwarded by the end of March 1996.

1. What reasons can be given for the delay in processing the contracts with the project coordinators and why are appropriations from the 1995 budget year being made available to recipients only as of mid- or late May 1996?

2. Does the Commission intend to speed up the internal procedures with a view to processing contracts and paying appropriations in good time in the case of projects selected in the 1996 tendering round?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take to give further support to project coordinators whose projects are threatened with failure as a result of the delay (work which cannot be completed punctually, partners who withdraw from projects, etc.)?

Answer given by Ms Cresson on behalf of the Commission (4 June 1996)

1. Leonardo da Vinci is a new vocational training programme which required new types of contract with the tenderers to be prepared, taking into account the diversity of the different types of action to be carried out.

The decision on the accepted projects was made in December 1995 after an evaluation over a number of stages of the more than 4,500 proposals submitted.

All contracts were sent to the selected tenderers, who were informed in writing by the Commission in December 1995 that their projects had been accepted. This meant that their work could begin straight away. As soon as the Commission received the contracts duly signed by the tenderers, the first instalment of Community aid was paid.

2. The contracts will be sent out more quickly to the tenderers selected from the 1996 call for tenders, as will the first instalments of Commission aid.

3. Some tenderers had to revise the co-financing budget in the light of the difference between the amount requested and the amount granted by the Commission, and also of the date of dispatch of the contracts. In doing so, they had to take into account the basic criteria for accepting the project. Tenderers may therefore contact the Commission, or its technical support office for the implementation of the Leonardo da Vinci programme, for any information concerning contracts and the modifications that they may wish to make following a revision.