ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Socrates programme

The Portuguese universities, like their counterparts elsewhere in the EU, have been raising major questions as to the institutional contracts proposed by the Commission for the academic year 1997-1998, in the context of the Socrates programme. In view of this, can the Commission state:

1. what factors explain the criticisms;

2. what aspects of its proposal it has agreed to review;

3. which universities have signed the institutional contract, and which universities have refused to sign?

Does the Commission intend to cut the red tape which seems to characterize the Socrates programme by comparison with the Erasmus programme?

Does the Commission not consider the average Community funding level of 15% to be insufficient for the objectives of the programme?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997)

The criticism expressed by the universities regarding the Socrates/Erasmus institutional contract stemmed from the level of detail of the contractual provisions in relation notably to the grant available for the large number of cooperation activities proposed by the universities.

The Commission has responded by modifying a series of articles in the institutional contract, thus giving more flexibility to the universities for their implementation of the cooperation activities. Only five out of 1475 universities have refused to sign the revised institutional contract. The modifications to the contract provisions have alleviated part of the administrative burden and the Commission will certainly consider ways of simplifying the programme in the future.

The Commission is acutely aware of the inadequacy of funding for the Socrates programme as a whole, for which it had proposed a budget far in excess of the figure finally adopted in 1994. In accordance with the procedures agreed at that time, the Commission has proposed an increase to the financial framework for the programme in 1998 and 1999 in order to reinforce the programme's capacity to meet its stated objectives. The Commission's proposal to increase the budget is currently under discussion in the Parliament and Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3824/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Situation of podiatry in Europe

What is the situation in the EU with regard to the recognition of qualifications and the freedom of movement of non-medical health professionals, with particular reference to:

1. the situation of podiatry in Europe,

2. existing Community directives in the field of podiatry or non-medical health professions,

3. the possibility of EU funding for the free exchange of university and college students,

4. the possibility of EU funding for refresher courses for non-medical health professionals.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

1. According to the information available to the Commission, chiropody (pediatry) is a regulated profession in all the Member States, except Belgium and Greece.

2. Chiropody and the non-medical health professions are governed, in the case of regulated professions, by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989. )) or by Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )).

3. The Community provides financial assistance for exchanges of university students under the Socrates programme (Chapter I: Higher education (Erasmus)) in all higher-education disciplines.

The national authorities decide which higher-education establishments are eligible to participate in the programme.

Students of chiropody at eligible establishments that have concluded an 'institutional contract' with the Commission may obtain a mobility grant to cover part of their travel expenses and differences in living costs.

4. Specific training measures for members of the non-medical health professions can be funded under the multi-purpose Leonardo da Vinci programme, subject, however, to two main conditions: such measures must be innovative and must be transnational in character (involving at least three Member States in most cases).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3971/97 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Air safety and quality of life in urban and semi-urban environments

At the moment, a number of European airports are used for the training of young pilots. Some of these airports are situated near large conurbations and have also been established in semi-urban areas that are heavily populated.

Does the Commission intend to call on the Member States of the European Union to introduce measures that will end training flights in civil transport aircraft above these areas, particularly at weekends?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (23 February 1998)

Pilot training is undertaken at many aerodromes, and at airports where pressures on capacity by commercial air transport operations permits.

Training and testing programmes normally continue throughout the career of a professional air transport pilot and much of it is now undertaken on advanced similator technology which is less expensive than training on aircraft and also permits training in dealing with realistically simulated situations which would be too dangerous to rehearse in flight.

The regulation of flying training procedures at and around airports is at present the exclusive responsibility of the Member States. Local authorities do sometimes restrict aircraft movements at predominantly training-oriented airfields, under their powers to regulate land use; but the prohibition of flight over certain areas is generally regulated at the technical level by national aviation authorities.

Given the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission does not currently propose to intervene in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3925/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: Religious slaughter of sheep in France

In recent years, distressing images of the religious slaughter of sheep in fields in France have been witnessed by television viewers across the Union. Allowing this to occur is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Amsterdam Treaty which contains a protocol on the protection and welfare of animals. Therefore while enforcement of animal welfare laws is a matter for the French authorities, the Commission has an obligation to oversee this enforcement.

1. What monitoring procedures does the Commission have in place to keep track of the uncontrolled slaughter of sheep in France?

2. Is the Commission satisfied with the measures that have been taken in France thus far and with their implementation?

3. By what means is the Commission seeking to ensure rigorous protection of animals against slaughter of this kind in its current negotiations with the French authorities on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

Article 14 of Directive 93/119/EC laying down certain requirements for the protection of animals at the time of slaughter and killing ((OJ L 340, 31.12.1993. )) states that Commission experts may make on-the-spot checks in so far as this is necessary to ensure uniform application of the Directive but, as for all animal welfare legislation, the implementation and the day-to-day enforcement is in the hands of the authorities of the Member States.

Ritual slaughter must, according to the above mentioned Directive, take place in an abattoir and must comply with other Community public health, animal health and welfare requirements.

The Commission is not satisfied about the fact that France has permitted, in certain circumstances, the practice of ritual slaughter outside slaughterhouses. Therefore the Commission is preparing a request to the French authorities to confirm that next year this ritual slaughter will be organized completely according to the Community rules concerned.

If this confirmation is not supplied, the Commission will open the infringement procedure provided for under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3757/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (17 November 1997)

Subject: Early marketing premium

In fixing a maximum weight for obtaining the early marketing premium, a slaughter weight of more than 160 kg for calves is used for the Netherlands and Belgium. The definition of a calf is an animal with a slaughter weight of less than 160 kg. It is mathematically impossible to obtain an average which is above the ceiling for the group.

1. How can the Commission justify using a weight from Eurostat which is based on an erroneous use of the definition of a calf?

2. In view of the fact that this error produces distortion of competition, resulting in some 60 000 baby calves being transported every year from Denmark to the Netherlands - in poor conditions for the animals' welfare as the newborn calves are unsteady on their legs - does the Commission not consider it necessary to rectify the mistake?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1997)

The definition of a 'calf' for statistical purposes is laid down in Commission Decision 94/433/EC of 30 May 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 93/24/EEC as regards the statistical surveys on cattle population and production, and amending the said Directive ((OJ L 179, 13.7.1994. )). That definition refers to a maximum live weight of 300 kilograms. Slaughter calves with good to excellent conformation will generally yield a carcase weight above 160 kilograms. Consequently, the Commission fails to identify the error referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

With regard to transport of calves Council Directive 91/628/EEC, as amended, provides the necessary protective measures for animals during transport. According to information available to the Commission, Denmark through its national laws complies fully with that Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3789/97 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (26 November 1997)

Subject: Barrier to trade in Denmark: Veterinary pharmaceutical product, Super-Ov

Is the Commission aware of the obstruction provided by the Danish authorities preventing Global Genetics of Unit One Moreton Farm, Eye, Leominster HR6 ODP from marketing the veterinary pharmaceutical product Super-Ov, for which the marketing authorization was applied for on 4 May 1994.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the Danish authorities comply with Directive 81/851/EEC ((OJ L 317, 6.11.1981, p. 1. )) and other single market compliance legislation?

When does the Commission envisage this issue being resolved to the satisfaction of Global Genetics and the British authorities who have submitted a formal complaint on behalf of Global Genetics? (Complaint number 96/4399).

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

The Honourable Member refers to a complaint lodged with the Commission concerning an alleged infringement of Community pharmaceutical legislation by Denmark. The complainant claimed that he had filed a complete application with the Danish authorities concerning the placing on the market of the veterinary medicinal product 'Super-OV' in May 1994 and that he had been waiting for a decision from the Danish authorities ever since.

Following a request for information on this issue, the Danish authorities confirmed that they still needed additional information, in line with Community legislation, in order to be able to grant a marketing authorisation for the product in Denmark. On request of the Commission, the Danish authorities, on 25 October 1996, sent a letter to the complainant in which they listed the information and documentation which he still had to provide. The Commission advised the complainant several times to act accordingly and to provide the Danish authorities with the information and documentation legitimately required.

As the complainant did not follow this advice, the Commission decided, on 15 October 1997, to close this complaint case.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3816/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (28 November 1997)

Subject: Green accounting

Could the Commission inform me, as rapporteur for Parliament on the Communication COM 94/670 on green accounting and environmental indicators, of the questions and responses obtained by the Council on steps taken to implement the abovementioned Communication?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (20 January 1998)

The communication to which the Honourable Member refers established a work programme which it has been possible, thus far, to carry out with existing operational credits, available to the Commission, as planned and without specific reference to the Council. The communication was officially transmitted to the Council in January 1995. Since this time the collaboration with Member States' representatives has been at working level, most frequently in the regular meetings of the committees on environmental statistics. An oral report on their achievements was made to the Environment Council meeting in Luxembourg on 16 October 1997, as a follow-up to which the Commission prepared a more substantial report ((SEC(97) 2314. )) on the current situation, which has been sent both to the Parliament and the Council. This latter report was discussed on 16 December 1997 in the Council which, while marking its appreciation for the work being done, did not make any substantive gesture as regards the financing of the work.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3693/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: Utilization of PHARE appropriations for the Czech Republic

The European Union aids the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through its PHARE programme. A great deal of aid has presumably been provided from this programme for the development of the countries which have applied for membership of the EU. Can the Commission provide details of the utilization of appropriations granted under PHARE in 1997 for the Czech Republic?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (15 January 1998)

Under the Phare national programme, the proposed country operational programme (COP) 1997 (32 MECU) received a favourable opinion of the Phare management committee on 31 October 1997. The break-down at the allocations is:

>TABLE>

Another allocation of 3 Mecu has been approved for the Tempus programme.

The cross border cooperation (CBC) programme between the Czech Republic and Germany (25 MECU) was presented to the Phare management committee on 2 October 1997, and received a favourable opinion. It consists of the following measures:

>TABLE>

The overall Phare budget for the Czech Republic in 1997 is therefore 60 MECU.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3893/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (11 December 1997)

Subject: European Union forestry strategy

A range of national programmes exists for extending public ownership of forests and subsidizing private owners with a view to achieving sustainable maintenance of forests. The goal is to significantly increase Europe's forestry reserves.

However, we should remember that despite these good intentions, in many countries these protected forests are left to survive as best they can, since the conservation legislation provided for them is old and out of date. For that reason, the new Community forest strategy should provide incentives not only for publicly and privately owned forests, but also seek to update legislation on the conservation of protected forests at Community level.

What is the current stage of consolidation with regard to the Community forestry strategy and what are the current plans for developing the future of the Community's forests, both public and private, with regard to the conservation and extension of the area under trees?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1998)

The Commission attaches a great deal of importance to conserving and protecting the forest resources of the Community and it would like to assure the Honourable Member that this concern will play a central role in its proposals for the future forestry strategy.

It is worth pointing out, however, that legislation on forests and woodland falls within the competence of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3687/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: The autonomy of foreign policy and the extraterritorial effect of certain laws

The extraterritorial application of certain laws, such as the Helms-Burton law, may restrict the freedom of action of other countries and their foreign and commercial policies, since this freedom is subject to what individuals or businesses may do or intend to do at any given moment.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to avoid these restrictions on the commercial and foreign policies of the European Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3686/97, E-3687/97, E-3688/97, E-3689/97 and E-3690/97 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997)

The understanding with the United States is not unbalanced. The Commission has brought a World trade organisation(WTO) panel procedure against the Helms-Burton Act. The Commission considers that this legislation is in violation of international law since it intends to influence (or has the effect of influencing) the behaviour of Community companies because of their involvement in Cuba. The understanding of 11 April 1997 reached between the Community and the US on the Helms-Burton Act and the D'Amato Act, by which the Community agreed to suspend its WTO case regarding the former, calls for the development of disciplines which 'should inhibit and deter the future acquisition of investments from any State which has expropriated or nationalised such investments'. In addition, and in parallel, the understanding also calls for the Community and the US to work together to address and resolve through agreed principles the issue of conflicting jurisdictions and secondary boycotts. It is important to note that the discussions between the Community and the US on this point are in symmetry with the discussions on investment disciplines. These talks are currently taking place with a view to finding an acceptable deal which will trigger a waiver under title IV of the Helms-Burton Act, thereby neutralising the extraterritorial effects of this Act.

In addition, the Community made clear that no settlement of the differences over the Helms-Burton Act will be implemented unless the United States has also granted Community companies a waiver under the D'Amato Act.

The Community has reserved all rights to resume the WTO panel procedure, or begin new procedures, if measures are taken against Community companies under Helms Burton or D'Amato as a result of waivers not being granted or continued.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3767/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: Disciplinary measures

Referring to the fact that some Commission officials were found to have been implicated in the BSE scandal, the Commission President, Mr Santer, told Parliament that the exact extent of the blame could not be established, because the Staff Regulations of officials, in their present form, made it impossible to bring guilt to light or impose penalties even in cases of serious professional misconduct.

It is already permitted under the Staff Regulations to issue written warnings or reprimands, defer an official's advancement to a higher step or downgrade him, or remove him from his post and, if deemed appropriate, withdraw his entitlement to retirement pension.

1. Will the Commission therefore enforce the above disciplinary measures already provided for in the Staff Regulations in order to punish those found to have been gravely at fault once the actual shortcomings have been brought to light?

2. Will it seek to maintain its right of initiative in matters connected with the Staff Regulations, without detracting from the necessary requirements of transparency and equity intended to preserve and defend the European Civil Service?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1998)

1. The disciplinary penalties that may be imposed on officials and temporary staff are governed by Articles 86 et seq. of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and Annex IX thereto, applicable by analogy to other servants, and may be ordered only after a procedure specified in meticulous detail has been followed; the sine qua non is that the official or member of temporary staff must have committed a serious breach of his or her obligations under the Staff Regulations.

President Santer has never stated that it was not possible for him to bring the guilt of certain Commission officials to light in the BSE scandal. He did inform Parliament's Committee of Inquiry that the Commission had caused a thorough investigation to be undertaken and had found no valid evidence to support the opening of disciplinary proceedings against Commission officials.

2. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will defend its right of initiative in all areas where it enjoys such a right under the Treaties, including, of course, the provisions of the Staff Regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4038/97 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1998)

Subject: Anti-subsidy investigation into cochineal

The Commission has launched an anti-subsidy investigation into imports of cochineal from Peru following a complaint by Xantaflor SA (Spain), which produces most of the Community's output of this colouring substance. In the complainant's view the Peruvian manufacturers have received various public subsidies that have helped the rise in Peruvian imports and price levels have damaged Community production.

Could the Commission say what are the initial findings of this investigation?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (4 February 1998)

On 22 September 1997, Xantoflor SA lodged an anti-subsidy complaint alleging that imports of cochineal carmine originating in Peru were being subsidised and causing material injury to the Community producers. Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community ((OJ L 288, 21.10.1997. )), the Commission found that the complaint contained sufficient prima facie evidence of subsidisation and material injury and published a notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy investigation in the Official journal ((OJ C 335, 6.11.1997. )).

After the publication of the notice of initiation, the Commission sent out questionnaires to all parties concerned. The replies to these questionnaires are due by the end of January 1998 and these replies will be verified in the course of February 1998. Therefore, it will only be possible to give a first assessment of this case after the verification and the analysis of the questionnaire replies, in accordance with the normal decision-making procedure. It should be stressed that this investigation is conducted according to the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97, which is the implementation into Community legislation of the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures.