ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (25 June 1996)

Subject: Operating appropriations for the European institutions

Working document No 7 of the Committee on Budgets concerning the 1997 budgetary procedure refers to 1200 studies carried out by the Commission in 1995 entered in Part B of the budget.

Can the Commission:

- provide a complete list of studies carried out by the Commission in 1995 entered in Part B,

- indicate the cost of each of these studies individually,

- indicate the total cost of the studies?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)

The Commission has carefully noted the Honourable Member's request, which to a large extent echoes the concern of the rapporteur general for the 1997 budget. A working document on studies financed by Part B of the budget has been prepared by the Committee on Budgets in preparation for the 1997 budget. The Commission followed up this document by launching an in-depth survey of the matter, going beyond the mere compilation of statistics.

The Commission proposes that the Honourable Member await completion of the current survey, as supplying the information requested would, in any case, involve extensive data compilation work and potential duplication with the work now in hand.

The Commission will of course be glad to oblige if the Honourable Member requires further information after receiving the results of the survey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1695/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Multiannual programme to promote energy efficiency in the European Union - Save II

In adopting the Commission proposal it emerged that a specific energy title should be included in the Treaty. Energy policy initiatives should pursue two priority objectives: economic and social cohesion and employment growth and particular attention must also be paid to measures to involve SMEs in the actions planned.

Does the Commission not therefore consider that it would be useful to examine:

1. the possibility of concentrating on integrated measures involving various sectors and geographical areas;

2. the importance of ensuring that final users are involved in studies and models with specific objectives;

3. the need to specify in invitations to tender the energy saving criteria required of firms responsible for energy management;

4. the importance of including in individual projects the specific objectives of reducing CO2 emissions, which should be subject to ex-post verification?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

1. Within the Save II programme the Commission will use networks covering specific sectors and with a wide geographic coverage to disseminate energy efficiency information. Such networks might include European associations of architects or engineers or groupings of cities with common transport problems.

2. Save is a programme which aims to influence the final consumer's energy efficiency behaviour. It has, therefore, always been the policy of the Commission to involve the final consumer in pilot projects as much as possible. The Save II programme includes an initiative to improve energy management capability at regional and local level which will involve consumers in the most direct fashion.

3. The current guidelines for Save submissions seek to identify pilot projects having the greatest impact on energy efficiency. The energy efficiency experts of the Commission have also assisted other programmes (notably Phare, Tacis and the Community support framework) to include a mention of energy efficiency in specifications of individual projects.

4. Save is a programme to improve the rational use of energy and should consequently reduce CO2 emissions. Ex-post evaluation of Save has concentrated essentially on the energy saving aspects but, in the future, a quantification of the reduction in CO2 emissions could be considered.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2455/96 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: Lynx outlawed in the Netherlands

Is the Commission aware that the lynx (Lynx lynx) is once again resident in the Netherlands? ((Algemeen Dagblad, 18.7.1996; Natuurhistorisch Maandblad of the 'Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg', September 1996 (being printed). ))

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands still has not adopted any measures to protect the lynx, even though the habitats directive ((Council Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) provides for strict protection?

Is the Commission prepared to call on the Netherlands government to provide statutory protection for the lynx?

Is the Commission also prepared to call for statutory protection for the wildcat (Felis silvestris) which is found in the border region of Southern Limburg and Belgium and for which the habitats directive also provides for strict protection?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)

The Commission has approached the Dutch authorities for information on the possible presence in the Netherlands of Lynx lynx and Felis silvestris. It has also asked what strict measures have been taken, where necessary, to protect these two species in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The Commission will examine the matter in the light of the information it receives from the Dutch authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Asbestos compensation

Is the Commission aware that there are still many people such as my constituent, Mr Ayton, who have suffered from asbestos related concerned and have still not been compensated?

The insurance company, The London and Manchester, deny that they have the necessary insurance certificate.

Mr Ayton has lost his wife, his sister, his brother, his niece and his friends who all worked in the same asbestos contaminated environment with him. After his great pain and suffering are there any measures proposed at European level to safeguard against victims of disasters such as the asbestos one being denied their rights?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1996)

In the United Kingdom diseases linked to exposure to asbestos are among those recognised as occupational diseases liable for compensation, and subject to preventive measures.

Whether or not the diseases of the Honourable Member's constituent and his family were occupational diseases, the system of compensation is a matter for the Member State.

The Honourable Member's reference to an insurance certificate is not understood.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0962/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Council (29 April 1996)

Subject: Rights of children

Is the Council aware of the European Forum for Child Welfare and its document 'Revision of the Maastricht Treaty' adopted in December 1995?

What moves will the Council take to protect children in the EU to ensure that all rights accorded under the United Nations Conventions are included?

Reply (29 October 1996)

1. The Council is deeply committed to the respect of fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover it is fully conscious of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which all Member States are signatories.

2. However, the Honourable Member should note that this is mainly a matter for the Member States, notwithstanding some Community provisions such as the Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 19994 on the protection of young people at work ((OJ L 216 of 20.08.1994. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Successor to EU Helios Programme

Why did the Commission fail to present its proposals on the successor to the Helios Programme to the European Disability Forum meeting on 6 May 1996, as officials indicated it would do? If the Commission does not publish its proposals before September 1996, as it now indicates, how can there possibly be genuine consultation with disabled people's NGOs and within the budgetary process in the European Parliament, prior to the ending of the Helios Programme in December this year? Will the Commission therefore immediately publish its proposals in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

The Commission was unable to present its proposals at the 6 May 1996 meeting of the European disability forum because its internal process of reflection and consultation was not sufficiently advanced to allow it to do so.

In the meantime, on the 30 July 1996 the Commission has adopted a communication on non-discrimination and equality of opportunity for people with disabilities setting out its overall strategy for achieving those objectives ((COM(96) 406 final. )). The development of that strategy will be the subject of full dialogue with disabled peoples' non governmental organisations and other interested parties.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Non-prohibition of the use of meal in feed for poultry, pigs and fish

According to various sources, France is considering precautionary measures which will soon prohibit manufacturers of meat-and-bone meal from using by-products of abattoir-slaughtered ruminants as inputs unless they have been declared fit for human consumption. However, the measures will not impose restrictions on the use of meat-and-bone meal in feed for poultry, pigs and fish.

What is the Commission's position on this issue?

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

The Commission has asked the scientific veterinary committee and the newly-established multi-disciplinary committee to make recommendations for measures to be taken in the Community as a whole in relation to the use of animal by-products for food and feed.

The Commission always bases its proposals on the best possible scientific advice, and therefore prefers not to take a position on the reported French measures until these committees have finalised their dicussions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2374/96 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: 1997 preliminary draft budget

In the light of the breakdown of appropriations in line B7-6210 (North-South cooperation in the fight against drugs), can the Commission say when and how it decides to take action (selection of projects, beneficiaries, resources made available by the EU and/or third parties etc.) and indicate the amount allocated by the Community to the United Nations programme for the international control of drugs?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1996)

Further to its communication of 6 July 1994 to the Council and Parliament, ((SEC(94) 1106. )) in June 1995 the Commission sent both institutions a proposal for a Regulation governing the use of budget heading B7-5080 (re-numbered B7-6210 as of January 1996). ((OJ C 242, 19.9.1995. )) The original Commission proposal was recently amended on 9 September, under Article 189a(2) of the Treaty, in the light of Parliament's opinion of 19 April. The adoption procedure will continue, in accordance with Article 189b.

The main principles governing project financing under budget heading B7-6210, set out in the proposal, are that Community operations should complement those of the Member States, within the overall framework of priorities set by the European Council, and support partner countries' national strategies for combating drugs. They should be consistent with internal Community measures and policies crucial to the effective combating of drugs, for example action to combat money laundering and the diversion of trade in chemical precursors, and they should support operations in the partner countries by the United Nations or other international agencies involved in the fight against drugs.

These factors are considered, together with the intrinsic value of each project and the Commission's experience to date, when selecting projects for financing each year under the said budget heading. The projects selected are either identified by the Commission or proposed by non-governmental organizations, countries requesting cooperation, research institutes or other organizations.

Between 1987 and 1995, ECU 76.6 million was spent under budget heading B7-6210, of which 45% was allocated to projects run by NGOs. The United Nations International Drug Control Programme received roughly a quarter of that heading's funds and should continue to do so.

Project selection for 1997 is still in progress, and will reflect not only the criteria and principles outlined above but also the conclusions of the Florence and Dublin European Councils, particularly as regards projects in the Caribbean and Latin America.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1709/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (25 June 1996)

Subject: France delays Dutch orders

According to reports in the Dutch press, visa applications for the Netherlands for businessmen from non-Schengen countries are being delayed in France. The visa applications go via the Schengen information system in Strasbourg.

1. Is the Commission aware that a normal visa application procedure for businessmen from non-Schengen countries takes two weeks and that business connections of Netherlands companies often have to wait six to eight weeks?

2. Can it confirm that this situation has the effect of distorting competition for the Netherlands business community and is the Commission prepared to ask the office of the Schengen information system to put this matter right?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The Commission, which takes part in the work of the Schengen group as an observer, does not have any information confirming the facts alleged in the press reports mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/96 by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Export refunds for Greek tobacco

A large proportion of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria has for decades depended on tobacco-growing for a living. However, as a result of the EU export subsidy policy for Greek tobacco, returns to these growers have declined so much in recent years that a whole sector of the agricultural industry, which survived even the collectivization attempts of previous regimes and has had a decisive influence on the traditional way of life of Bulgarian Turks, must now be said to be facing ruin. About 25 000 (of a total of 80 500) Turkish families in this sector have already lost their livelihood. (See Mittel- und Osteuropa auf dem Weg in die Europäische Union [Central and eastern Europe on the road to the European Union], report on the state of integration, pub. Werner Weidenfeld, Strategies for Europe series.)

What funds has the Commission spent on export subsidies for Greek tobacco since 1990?

What funds have been paid for exports of tobacco to Bulgaria and traditional Bulgarian export markets?

When does the Commission propose to end these subsidies, which distort competition and are anti-social in their effect, and not only issue declarations on the need to support minorities but also practise such support itself?

>TABLE>

* Tobacco exported and eligible for subsidy in 1994, the refunds being recorded in the accounts of the 1995 budget year.

Note that the Community budget nomenclature is not detailed enough to allow identification of the destination of subsidized tobacco exports.

To conclude, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the 1992 reform of the common market organization for tobacco abolished export refunds for this product. Only tobacco harvested before the reform was eligible for subsidy after 1992 and this concession remained open until the end of 1994. Since that date, no tobacco has been eligible for export subsidies.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)

Of course the commitment to free movement of citizens within the European Union applies to blind people. The restriction of movement in this case is not to the blind person per se but rather to the accompanying guide dog which is currently subject to British rabies quarantine regulations.

A number of initiatives have already been taken including Community funding of a rabies eradication scheme, which is progressing satisfactorily and an alternative system to quarantine has been agreed for entry of traded dogs and cats into the United Kingdom. The Commission is committed to making suitable proposals for accompanied dogs and cats at an appropriate time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2102/96 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Quotas for milk producers

The current milk quota arrangements are in force for one year, from 1 April each year to 31 March of the following year.

However, leasing - the temporary transfer of milk quotas between producers - is possible only for a nine-month period, from 1 April to 31 December each year.

Dairy cattle farmers are increasingly asking for more flexibility and for the leasing period to be equivalent to the period for the milk quota itself.

1. Is the Commission prepared to follow up this suggestion?

2. Can the Commission provide reasons for its reply?

Answer given by Mr Franz Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 September 96)

At the time of the 1992 revision of the milk quota scheme, leases - the temporary transfers of milk quotas between producers - for a twelve-month period were authorized until 31 December, that is to say, three months before the end of the quota year. However, the Member States were also authorized to decide against implementing the temporary transfers in response to the need to facilitate structural evolution and adaptation or to accommodate pressing administrative needs.

The temporary transfers constitute a means to make the quota use profitable, either on a national level or on an individual basis. However, the Commission considers that too wide an application of this principle could impede structural modifications in the event that the majority of producers that do not entirely use up their quota might prefer to receive income by temporarily transferring, rather than selling, quota-bearing land to other farms that would like a structural improvement.

Furthermore, the authorization for temporary transfers until 31 March would complicate administrative procedures by threatening the scheme's proper management and with particular reference to the buyer's duty to communicate the data concerning individual producers by 15 May of every year.

In conclusion, the Commission considers that a modification of the cut-off date for the temporary transfers would not benefit the management of the quota scheme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Aid to Bhutan

Can the Commission detail aid and assistance given to Bhutan over each of the last five years?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)

The aid to Bhutan over each of the last five years was as follows:

in ECU

>TABLE>

(1) Human resources development project 5 500 000 ECU Integrated pest management 2 600 000 ECU Cultivation of medicinal plants 3 500 000 ECU (2) Plant protection project: supplementary funding (3) Development of agricultural support activities: supplementary funding (4) Export diversification project
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Magnus Lemmel's criticism of the Commission

On 5 July 1996, the Deputy Director-General of DG III, Magnus Lemmel, criticized the Commission's methods of working in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Politik. The same newspaper reported on 9 July 1996 that this had led to Magnus Lemmel being 'called to explain himself to one of Commission President Jacques Santer's closest associates.' In view of the Commission's bad reputation for openness and scrutiny and Sweden's declared aim to increase openness throughout the EU system, it is particularly serious if the Commission's attempts to gag its staff affect a Swedish official.

Is it true that Magnus Lemmel has been 'called to explain himself' to a Commission representative? If so, on what grounds? Does the Commission consider that its staff are not entitled to associate with the public in the normal way? Does the Commission have something to hide? What is actually happening behind the Commission's closed doors?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)

The Commission adopted in 1994 a joint code of conduct with the Council guaranteeing that the public has the widest possible access to documents. Accordingly, every refusal of access to a document has to be specifically justified.

As for the performance of the Commission's officials, their rights and obligations are determined in the staff regulations of the Communities. Like any employer, the Commission expects its officials to be active to obtain the best possible results in terms of policies and administration.

Therefore, the Commission welcomes and encourages its officials to suggest reforms. High level officials in particular are responsible for making proposals and implementing changes. In this respect, public debate can complement but not replace internal reform processes.

It can also be noted that the Commission has recently launched several important initiatives to improve administrative efficiency. The programme to promote sound and efficient management (SEM 2000), spearheaded by Commissioners Liikanen and Gradin, seeks to improve the quality of the Commission's management over time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 3, Eastern Macedonia-Thrace, Measure 3 of the 2nd CSF: 'Health and Welfare'

Measure 3.3 of the regional operational programme for Eastern Macedonia and Thrace provides for funding of health and welfare facilities in the region comprising: the completion of the hospitals at Xanthi and Drama, improvement and modernization of the existing hospitals at Komotini, Kavalla and Alexandroupolis and, finally, the construction of the university hospital of Alexandroupolis which is a top priority project of vital importance for the entire region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace.

The breakdown of funding was ECU 3 793 000 for 1994 and ECU 11 379 000 for 1995.

1. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

2. Have there been any delays in taking up the funds and, if so, what were the main reasons for them?

3. Can the Commission provide details of the progress made with this measure?

Supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1484/96 and E-1485/96 given by Mme Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 26 June 1996 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 126. )), the Commission can now provide the following details.

Funding in 1994 and 1995 for the 'Health and Welfare' measure of the operational programmes (OP) referred to totalled ECU 72.1 million. The take-up over the same period was ECU 10.13 million. As the programmes started at the end of 1994, the funds were actually taken up in 1995.

Most of the financing under this measure goes on projects to build large hospitals. These require major planning, study and preparatory work before construction or equipment purchases can go ahead, hence the take-up delay in 1995.

Much of the preparatory work has been completed this year and work has started on building some hospitals. Consequently, an increase in the take-up of funding can now be expected. The Commission is closely monitoring this measure in both the regional and 'Health and Welfare' operational programmes.