ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0321/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)

Subject: Ecofin meeting of 19 June 1995

In the conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting of 19 June 1995 concerning national measures taken to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources, the following paragraph appears under item 1, headed 'At Member State level':

'take the necessary measures to ensure that the inspections carried out by the Member States and the penalties they impose make it possible to achieve a level of protection for the Community's financial interests that is identical throughout the territory of the Community'.

Can the Council explain whether this identical level of protection of financial interests will mean de facto standardization of the crime of Community fraud in all 15 Union Member States?

Joint Reply (13 June 1996)

1. As it has already stated in the comments accompanying its recommendation on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the 1994 budget, it is the Council's wish that in the context of the Court's annual reports Member States should be given the opportunity to reply to the Court's comments. It is essential, in the interests of closer cooperation between the Member States and the European institutions, and in particular with the Court of Auditors, that the administrations be given this opportunity to reply in good time; in this connection, the Council takes the view that close contacts on specific issues can only improve the effect of controls and their follow-up.

The Council's position on the Court of Auditor's observations in its annual report and in its special reports is detailed in the comments accompanying the abovementioned Recommendation which was adopted on 11 March 1996. The Honourable Member should refer to it for the Council's comments on individual areas of Community budget expenditure and on the control systems for each area. Generally speaking, the Council supports the Court's recommendations and calls upon the Commission to act on them to ensure that Community expenditure is effected in a manner consistent with the interests of the European Union.

2. Regarding collaboration between the courts of auditors of the Member States and the European Court of Auditors, the Council recommended in its 'Act of 26 July 1995' ((OJ No C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 48. )) the adoption by the Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests. Article 2 of the Convention provides that each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that fraud affecting the European Communities' financial interests, and participating in, instigating, or attempting such conduct, are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including, at least in cases of serious fraud, penalties involving deprivation of liberty which can give rise to extradition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0520/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Helios programme

What action is the Commission considering to ensure the survival of European NGO's of disabled people, if grants to those organizations are suspended if the Council blocks a new Helios programme at the end of 1996?

Does the Commission agree that such organizations play an invaluable role in dialogue between the European Union and disabled European citizens, and will it consider emergency arrangements to provide transitional payments should such a situation arise?

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

The interim evaluation report of the Helios II programme ((DOC. COM(96) 8 final. )), adopted by the Commission on 23 January 1996, highlights the importance of cooperation between organisations of people with disabilities. The European added value of such dialogue and cooperation is widely appreciated.

The Commission is actively engaged in considering the follow-up to the Helios II programme which ends in December 1996. The Commission is in any case committed to propose appropriate initiatives to promote equal opportunities for people with disabilities. In the Commission's view, this should encompass support for cooperation with organisations of people with disabilities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0617/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Internal waterway transport

In adopting Regulation (EEC) No. 1101/89 ((OJ L 116, 28.4.1989, p. 25. )), the Council introduced measures for structural improvements in inland waterway transport, aimed primarily at reducing the overcapacity of fleets through scrapping schemes coordinated at Community level. For this purpose, the Member States concerned provided their scrapping funds, by drawing on their national budgets, with the financial resources needed to offer a scrapping premium to shipowners who submitted their applications by 30 June 1994, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No. 3039/94 ((OJ L 322, 15.12.1994, p. 11. )).

However, as a result of the sector's economic difficulties, further applications for scrapping premiums were submitted to the national scrapping funds after the deadline. The budgetary authority therefore decided to enter ECU 5 million (LIT 10 bn) in the 1995 Community budget.

While approving the measures adopted, I would ask the Commission whether it agrees that alterations should be made to the nature and scope of the restructuring measures, which have hitherto been financed primarily by the internal waterway transport sector itself?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1996)

The Council has endorsed the main elements of the proposal to intensify the existing scrapping programme, in order to reduce capacity by 15% of the total tonnage through a common scrapping action over a three-year period, from 1996 to 1998. The programme will be jointly financed by the Member States concerned, by the industry and by a contribution from the Community budget.

However, the Council decided that Community co-funding for the scrapping action whould be restricted to 1996 alone, so that for 1997 and 1998 the Member States directly concerned will have to make available additional means in proportion to the size of their respective fleets.

On 11 March 1996, the Council reached a political agreement on a package to liberalise the inland waterway market along with accompanying measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/96 by Giovanni Burtone (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Unjustified delay in approving the Urban national programme for Italy

The Italian Prime Minister's Department for Community Policies, in conjunction with the Commission's DG XVI, adopted the Urban national programme in November 1995 and submitted it to the Commission for final approval with a view to starting up the operational programmes.

Four months later, the Commission has still not approved the programme.

1. What are the reasons for the Commission's delay in granting final approval for the Urban national programme in Italy?

2. Does the Commission not consider that, as it has imposed strict deadlines and qualitative standards throughout the whole procedural process, the present delay is unjustified and is helping to fuel the public's image of an inefficient, over-bureaucratic Community?

3. Does the Commission not believe that the Community should pay for the costs incurred to citizens and the public authorities, following the bureaucratic delays and conflicts between its own departments, given that they have proceeded in good faith with commitments and payments in the sure hope that the Urban national programme would be approved in good time?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)

The innovative and intricate nature of the Community's 'Urban' initiative required a careful process of appraisal by bodies at various levels acting jointly with the Italian authorities.

Appraisal took time because checks had to be made on the degree of Community added value and on the eligibility of expenditure. Suitable monitoring and control mechanisms also had to be found.

Certain aspects were not resolved until the end of March, after which the Commission was able to draw up the final version of the programme, adopted on 30 April 1996.

The Commission would point out that the period during which admissible programme activities can receive funding starts from the date the first proposal is submitted to it.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/96 by Frederik Willockx (PSE) to the Commission (25 January 1996)

Subject: The 'Euro' single currency and blind people and the partially sighted

A properly thought out information campaign will be needed to secure popular acceptance of the single currency, the 'Euro'. What is important, however, is to satisfy all the users of the new currency who include the blind and the partially sighted.

Numerous banknotes and coins currently contain marks enabling the blind and the partially sighted to distinguish between them. Does the Commission intend to take such people into account when it decides on what the banknotes and coins are to look like? These distinguishing marks are easy to incorporate in the design, and they cannot possibly hold up production.

This is an opportunity to take account of one part of the population from the very start of the new currency. The 'Euro' must not lag behind national currencies.

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (12 March 1996)

The Commission was in contact with blind and partially sighted people prior to drafting its Green Paper on the introduction of the single currency and is continuing to take account of their particular problems in planning the practical arrangements for the changeover to the euro.

The European association representing the blind and partially sighted was thus invited to take part in the recent Round Table on the euro, which had the task of devising the communication strategy for the introduction of the single currency.

The design of coins and banknotes is the responsibility of the Working Group of Mint Directors on the basis of a mandate from the Ecofin Council and the European Monetary Institute.

The Commission has drawn the Working Group's attention and that of the EMI to this problem. To the best of its knowledge, the recommendations of the European association representing the blind and partially sighted have been taken into consideration and bilateral meetings have been organized.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/96 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Information campaigns planned for 1996

Will the Commission, as part of its information campaigns planned for 1996 (Euro, IGC, etc.), in particular those involving paid advertising, make use of regional and local radios? I am thinking, for example, of Member States such as Portugal where local radio accounts for a sizeable 'segment' of the audience.

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (26 April 1996)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's views. Local radio stations, whether commercial or run by special-interest groups, offer certain features which make them a particularly effective vehicle for priority public information campaigns, since they reach audiences who often have no access to other types of media in terms they understand. Moreover, depending on their own policy and the expectations of their listeners, they are able to reject advertising material. Rather than purchasing expensive advertising time, the Commission is planning to operate a genuine system of partnership.

Radio stations are usually interested, because their editorial capacity is too small for them to have a journalist specializing in European affairs, although they feel the need of one. With this in mind, the Commission is producing information features on the European Union for broadcasting by local radio stations, if they wish to do so. The effectiveness of this system has been demonstrated in France, where it was introduced as a pilot scheme and the number of broadcasts proved to be high.

On an experimental basis, the Commission's Office in France used this system again in connection with a campaign on the euro. The Parliament/Commission working party will be kept fully informed of the results of this pilot scheme. Consideration is being given to extending it to the other Member States.

The use of regional and local radio is a good example of the Commission's often-repeated desire to get closer to the people of Europe. To this end, proposals for cooperative ventures are being studied, taking into account the relative importance of the various media given regional and local differences.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1285/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: French ban on homosexual weddings at the Swedish Embassy in Paris

According to a report in Le Monde, the French authorities have banned the Swedish Embassy in Paris from marrying homosexual Swedes in accordance with current Swedish legislation.

Does the Commission consider such action to be compatible with the rules on the extraterritorial status of embassies?

Does it consider such action to be compatible with the principles of human rights and equal treatment for all, e.g. irrespective of sexual orientation?

Does it consider such action to be compatible with the principle of mutual respect in relation to EU Member States' laws and customs?

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

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1157/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Foreign (non-EU) workers in Greece

Large numbers of foreigners from non-EU countries are known to be illegally working in Greece. The Ministry of Labour estimates their number at about half a million. They are known to work for about half the amount Greeks would earn, and to pay no social security contributions.

The results have been:

- the unemployment of a large number of Greek workers and

- a loss of revenue to the Greece social security system.

- Is the situation in Greece compatible with Community law?

- Should not every non-EU worker be issued with a work permit?

- Can the Commission intervene, and if so, how?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1996)

In the current state of Community law the question concerning the admission of nationals of third countries into Member States with a view to employment is not in principle a Community competence.

However, pursuant to Article K1 of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), 'immigration policy and policy regarding nationals of third countries' are considered by the Member States to be 'matters of common interest'. The Member States cooperate to this end within the Council, with the full involvement of the Commission in their work. In this respect they have adopted resolutions (Council Resolution of 1 December 1994 on limitation of the admission of third-country nationals to the Member States with a view to working in a self-employed capacity; Resolution of 20 June 1994 on limitation of the admission of third-country nationals to the Member States with a view to paid employment) to define common principles. Moreover they cooperate, also on the ground, in combating clandestine immigration. On this latter point the Council, since the entry into effect of the TEU, has adopted five recommendations, the most important of which are:

* the Council Recommendation of 22 December 1995 on harmonising means of combating illegal immigration and illegal employment and improving the relevant means of control ((OJ C 5, 10.1.1996. ));

* the Council Recommendation of 22 December 1995 on concerted action and cooperation in carrying out expulsion measures1.

As regards the Commission's position, the Honourable Member should consult the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament of 23 February 1994 on immigration and asylum policies ((COM(94) 23 final. )) in which it sets out its global approach on how to combat the problem of clandestine immigration and specific measures concerning the suppression of illegal employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0809/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Reported plans to divert the Spanish section of the River Tagus

Has the Commission been officially informed of a unilateral project by the Spanish Government, which has not been negotiated with Portugal, to divert the River Tagus to the River Guadalquivir, a project for which Community funds are reportedly being sought?

If this is true, what approach will the Commission take under the relevant legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1996)

To date, the Commission has received no request to finance a project to divert the Spanish section of the River Tagus to the Guadalquivir.

In this regard, the Commission would point out that by mutual agreement with the Member States concerned, it is cofinancing various studies on water resources in the Iberian Peninsula.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: BSE

The crisis over BSE is still far from finished but cooperation between the Member States is essential if this disease is to be eradicated quickly and efficiently. How will the Commission ensure that each Member State is informed of all cases of BSE occurring throughout the European Union? does the Commission intend to declare BSE as a notifiable disease, therefore requiring its presence to be notified to the authorities of all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 May 1996)

Council Directive 82/894/EEC ((OJ L 378, 31.12.1982. )) requires that Member States notify primary outbreaks of certain animal diseases to the Commission and Member States within 24 hours of confirmation. It also specifies the information to be provided.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was added to the list of diseases to be notified by Commission Decision 92/450/EEC ((OJ L 248, 28. 8.1992. )). Therefore, Member States are required to notify cases of BSE which are confirmed on their territory.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/96 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Aid for small-scale inshore fishing

On 18 December 1995, the Commission approved a special project of aid for small-scale inshore fishing in Sweden. The measures include investments on board fishing vessels of less than 9 metres, or less than 12 metres in the case of vessels fishing with the aid of trawl nets.

Does the Commission intend to continue granting aid for small-scale fishing in Sweden in future?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)

The aid given by the Commission on 18 December 1995 to action plans for small-scale coastal fishing in a number of States including Sweden comes from an ECU 3 million budget heading, B2-521, specially created by the budgetary authority when it adopted the 1995 budget. This year, however, no funds have been made available for this heading. For 1997, the Commission has entered a token appropriation. It is up to the budgetary authority to decide whether or not to fund the heading.

In any case, financial assistance for modernizing small-scale coastal fishing industries is already available from the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (heading B2-11) for Objective 5a regions. Schemes like the vocational training project for fishermen are covered by the Community's Pesca initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0890/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) and Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (17 April 1996)

Subject: Changes made by Regulation No 272/96 setting export refunds on products processed from fruit and vegetables

Following objections raised by third countries concerning the impact on international trade of export refunds introduced in Regulation No 3290/94 ((OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p.105)) of 22 December 1994 on the adjustments and transitional arrangements required in the agriculture sector in order to implement the agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round, the European Community undertook to reduce gradually the level of support for the export of agricultural products.

Regulation No 272/96 ((OJ L 36, 14.2.1996, p.15)) amended the annex to Regulation No 1430/95 ((OJ L 141, 24.6.1995, p.32.)) by laying down new parameters for export refunds. The new annex makes a distinction between two periods:

- the first covers licences issued and applications submitted between 25 October 1995 and 22 February 1996, to which the rates already laid down in the original Regulation No 1430/95 apply;

- the second covers licenses issued between March 1996 and June 1996, and applications submitted between 23 February 1996 and 21 June 1996, to which the new rates laid down in Regulation No 272/96 apply.

The new rules penalize manufacturers who have drawn up contracts and made commitments on the basis of the parameters previously laid down.

In order to remedy this situation of uncertainty in which the market and the firms concerned find themselves, it is requested that:

1. The Italian Government should assess the advisability of applying to the Court of Justice for the annulment (pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty) of Regulation No 272/96;

2. Before the end of Italy's six-month presidency of the European Union all possible measures should be adopted to prevent any legislative provisions from further worsening the situation.

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

1. The first question put by the Honourable Members is outside the Commission's field of competence.

2. The Commission is taking all necessary steps to maintain export flows despite the quantitative and budgetary limits imposed on agriculture by the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). With regard to peeled tomatoes, the main product to benefit from export subsidies in the 'products processed from fruit and vegetables' sector, the Commission has observed that, notwithstanding the reduction in refund rates from 23 February 1996, the rate for this product was still attractive enough to generate an increase in export licence applications to nearly five times the available quantity (28 423 tonnes). The Commission was therefore obliged to publish a reducing factor (Regulation (EC) No 355/96) ((OJ L 50, 29.2.1996 )) for applications submitted on 23 February 1996, and to reject all subsequent applications.