ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4029/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (14 January 1997)

Subject: Community award for mixed-language schools

The seventy-fifth anniversary of the Alberto Durero school in Seville, Spain, has once again focused attention on the importance of specialized teaching establishments which educate their pupils in a language other than that of the country in which they are located.

The school in question provides a humanist education in the German language to hundreds of students, the richness of which is reflected in their ability to express themselves in two different languages throughout their educational life.

This distinguished German school should be congratulated on its achievements and it is appropriate to ask the Commission whether it believes that schools such as the Durero should be given a special Community award to mark important anniversaries of this kind in order to encourage the development of such establishments and award them a European quality mark as a recognition of the contribution they have been making to fraternity between the peoples of Europe since long before the present Community existed.

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (27 January 1997)

The Commission, in the context of the Socrates cooperation programme in the field of education (Lingua actions) supports various projects to encourage the dissemination of methods of teaching content through the medium of a foreign language. The white paper 'Teaching and learning: towards the learning society' ((COM(95) 590 final. )), in its objective 4, also refers to the benefits of these methods. It is, therefore, a subject which the Commission considers to be of great importance and to which it will be devoting even more attention in the coming years.

Furthermore, in the context of the studies undertaken with a view to putting into practice the ideas contained in the white paper, the Commission is investigating, in close consultation with Member States, the possibility of creating a quality label in the field of the teaching and learning of languages. This would be awarded to the most innovative projects in the field. There is therefore always the possibility that in the near future the Colegio Alberto Durero could apply for such a label providing that it fulfils the relevant criteria.

The Commission congratulates the college on its achievements over the past 75 years.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3031/96 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Fishing in South Africa

Portuguese owners of long-range fishing vessels are firmly convinced that the association agreement between the EU and South Africa should be linked to fishing opportunities. Can the Commission give a progress report on this matter, particularly in the context of the commitments given to Portuguese shipowners by Members of the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

In September 1995, the Commission received authorisation from the Council to negotiate a fisheries agreement with South Africa. The Commission is therefore ready to discuss with the South African authorities the real possibilities that exist for reaching an agreement of benefit to both sides.

When visiting South Africa in May this year, the Commissioner for fisheries stressed that there were very clear negotiating instructions from the Council, which had indicated on the subject of liberalising trade in fishery products that this should depend on progress made in the parallel talks on a separate fisheries agreement.

The Commissioner's meetings at political level in South Africa confirmed that the South African authorities will need to pursue a policy in this field which is essential for this matter to be settled. The South African authorities are in fact preparing to publish a White Paper by the end of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/96 by Annemarie Kuhn (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)

Subject: The bovine growth hormone rBST

In the EU the use and sale of rBST is prohibited until 31 December 1999. The use of rBST is permitted in a number of non-EU countries.

1. Is the Commission aware of instances of milk and dairy products being imported into the EU from countries where rBST is permitted?

2. If so, from which countries are milk and dairy products imported?

3. What quantities of milk and dairy products are to the Commission's knowledge being imported into the EU from countries where rBST is permitted, and in which Member States are they marketed?

Under the terms of decision 90/218/EEC ((OJ L 116, 8.5.1990, p. 27. )), Member States are permitted to carry out limited field tests with rBST.

4. To what extent are field tests carried out in the Member States with recombinant growth hormones? Is the marketing of food suffs rules out after each test prohibited? If not, what foodstuffs are permitted to be marketed following these tests?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1996)

1. Council Decision 94/936/EC ((OJ L 366, 31.12.1994. )) concerning the placing on the market and administration of Bovine Somatotrophin (BST) does not prohibit the import of milk products from non-member countries where the administration of rBST to cattle is authorized.

2. Since non-member countries are not required to officially declare whether they authorize the use of BST in cattle, the Commission does not have information indicating all the countries which do so. To its knowledge, the following non-member countries authorize the use of BST: the United States of America, Mexico, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Algeria, Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, India and Pakistan.

3. All Member States import milk products from some of the abovementioned countries. In 1995, the Community imported 5 283 tonnes of milk products from the United States, 5 636 tonnes from the Czech Republic, 2 264 tonnes from Slovakia and 1 810 tonnes from Bulgaria. Imports from the other non-member countries listed in paragraph 2 are non-existent or insignificant.

4. To date, no Member State has decided to carry out the limited practical tests on the use of BST provided for in Article 2 of Council Decision 24/936/EC.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3420/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Somalia and war

Given the continuing appalling situation in Somalia, is the Commission aware that the Somali coast is wide open to anyone who wants to bring in guns?

Is the Commission aware of the possibility that anyone can go in and manipulate the situation, provide more weapons and therefore make the situation worse?

Is there anything that is being or can be done to promote reconciliation in that region?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)

The Commission is aware that the Somali coast, the second longest in Africa, is easily accessible and open.

The Commission fully supports the United Nations (UN) security council resolution of 23 January 1992 imposing an embargo on all arms deliveries to Somalia and is providing the UN security council committee on violation of mandatory arms embargo in Somalia with all the information it has about violations of the embargo.

At the same time the Commission is supporting grass roots initiatives to foster peace and reconciliation and the establishment and consolidation of civil authorities in Somalia.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2501/96 by Jan Wiebenga (ELDR) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: Additional costs incurred by Dutch cash transport businesses due to an amendment to Belgian legislation

Due to an amendment to Belgian legislation, security guards collecting and delivering cash are required to carry a firearm in Belgium. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, legislation prohibits them from doing so. In cross-border transport operations, the problem now arises that Belgian-based security guards, carrying firearms, are not permitted to operate in the Netherlands, while unarmed Dutch-based security guards are not permitted to operate in Belgium. When they reach the border, Dutch security guards must be replaced by Belgian ones and vice versa. This has considerably increased the operating costs of many cash collection and delivery companies.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does this constitute an obstacle to freedom to perform services?

If so, what measures will the Commission take to remedy this situation without delay?

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

The Commission would first thank the Honourable Member for giving it the opportunity to stress the seriousness of the many complex barriers to the freedom to provide services which exist in the field of cash transport.

Through its regular contacts with the industry, the Commission is already aware of the obstacle referred to by the Honourable Member and resulting from the fact that the carrying of firearms by security guards is mandatory in Belgium and prohibited in the Netherlands. It has also been informed of a number of other obstacles introduced by the laws of several Member States governing various aspects of cash transport. For example, rules which limit freedom to provide services exist with regard to the approval of firms, the approval and training of staff, the use of badges, uniforms and documents, professional cards, the approval of vehicles and the conditions governing cash-transport operations.

The Commission is convinced that the existence of these different and contradictory rules, which are extremely detailed and complex, prevents services, and more particularly cross-border cash-transport services, from being provided freely. At present, a firm wishing to take advantage of the single market is faced with major obstacles when it comes to cross-border transport and is thus severely deterred from operating legally.

Consequently, the Commission has been actively examining the cash-transport sector and analysing all the obstacles which have been introduced by national rules governing this activity. It will be all the more necessary for cash to be transported efficiently across borders once the euro has been introduced since this will give rise to a sharp increase in transport within the Community.

On a different level, the Commission has already initiated infringement proceedings against three Member States which impose discriminatory conditions on Community nationals wishing to take advantage of their freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in this sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2963/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Mixing of olive oils and oils from other oilseeds

Does the Commission intend to take action to ban and prevent the mixing of olive oil with oils from other oilseeds in order to rectify fraud and preserve the quality of olive oil as a highly regarded product?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

The Commission agrees that it is important to preserve the quality of olive oil. The task group set up in the olive oil sector ((Annex of Regulation No 136/66/CEE - OJ 172, 309.1966 as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 356/92 - OJ L 39, 15.2.1992. )) has asked national control bodies to pay particular attention to this question.

It would be irregular to market under the description of olive oil ((Commission 1995 and 1996 annual antifraud workprogrammes; COM(95) 98 final of 8.2.1995, COM(96) 17 final. )) a product which does not correspond to the organoleptic characteristics of olive oil and, therefore, for which an aid can not be paid. If such an irregularity is detected, the Member State concerned is bound to apply administrative financial penalties in accordance with Article 3.b of Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 ((OJ L 248, 5.9.1991. )), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3288/92 ((OJ L 327, 13.11.1992. )), without prejudice to other more severe penalties.

There is however no ban on the marketing without payment of aid of a product correctly described as mixed oils.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2230/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) and Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Poseima-craft programme

Council Decision 91/315/EEC ((OJ L 171, 29.6.1991, p. 5. )) of 26 January 1991 set up a programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of Madeira and the Azores (Poseima).

Section 16.1 of this programme makes provision for Community measures to assist small craft businesses (embroidery, rug-making, ceramics, basketry) - the Poseima-craft programme - which was approved at the end of 1992 for the three-year period 1992-94, with an allocation of ECU 6 million in addition to the CSF appropriations.

Can the Commission confirm what specific measures were implemented over the three-year period 1992-94 in the autonomous region of Madeira under the Poseima-craft programme and what sums were disbursed in each of the measures carried out?

Can the Commission say whether the Poseima-craft programme has been closed or whether it is to be extended?

If it has been closed, has any independent financial provision been made to continue the measures introduced?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2229/96 and E-2230/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)

A number of measures were financed under the craft provisions of the Poseima programme for the Madeira and Azores autonomous regions to help local businesses making e.g. embroidery, tapestries, ceramics and baskework. Support took the form of training schemes, help with the introduction of new technology and access to new markets.

The total earmarked for craft businesses under the programme approved by the Commission was ECU 6 million. The Commission has just received the Portuguese government's final report on the Poseima measures and will be studying it closely.

The new operational programmes for the two autonomous regions approved as part of the Community support framework for Portugal 1994-99 reflect considerations similar to those underlying Poseima.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3947/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (10 January 1997)

Subject: Baza-Huéscar (Granada) irrigation scheme

The Negratin Dam and the Jabalcón Canal were build in the Baza-Huéscar region (Granada) in order to create 23 000 hectares of irrigated land. However, the irrigation networks have not been completed, and only 1 000 hectares are being irrigated.

Can the Commission state what Community funds were assigned to the Negratin Dam, and if there is at present any approved European Union investment in the schemes for irrigation networks and other complementary installations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 January 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2964/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Impact of olive-growing in certain regions

Is the Commission fully aware that olive-growing figures among the sectors with the greatest social impact owing to the employment which it generates in depressed areas of the European Union with extremely high rates of unemployment?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2953/96, E-2954/96, E-2955/96, E-2956/96, E-2957/96, E-2958/96, E-2959/96, E-2960/96, E-2961/96, E-2962/96 and E-2964/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1996)

The Commission will be discussing the different options for the reform of the olive oil common market organization (CMO) in the very near future. A document will then be transmitted speedily to the Parliament and the Council for discussion before any concrete proposals are finalised.

The Commission will certainly take into account the Honourable Members' remarks and questions concerning employment, intervention aid to real production, aid per tree, consumption aid, quality, impact on the environment and the specific problems of Spain and some of its producer regions.

It would not be correct to comment in detail at this stage on the various options for reforms except to repeat that the new common market organisation should be transparent, simple, easy to control and should target producers efficiently.

The Commission attaches great importance to quality and believes that, whatever option is chosen, there will be an important role for Member States and regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Martinique region

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Martinique region and the specific financing for each objective under the Structural Funds and the EAGGF guidance section?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/96, E-3646/96, E-3647/96, E-3648/96, E-3649/96, E-3650/96, E-3651/96, E-3652/96, E-3653/96, E-3654/96, E-3655/96, E-3656/96, E-3657/96, E-3658/96, E-3659/96, E-3660/96, E-3661/96, E-3662/96, E-3663/96, E-3664/96, E-3665/96, E-3666/96, E-3667/96, E-3668/96 and E-3669/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 February 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3003/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Habitats directive - implementation in France

According to European Report, France has announced its intention to freeze implementation of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. ))).

What is the Commission's view of this breach of EU law and what action will be taken?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1996)

The Commission learned from the press about the French decision of 19 July 1996 to freeze implementation of the habitats Directive. It reacted by issuing two press releases. The first on 31 July 1996 deplored the French decision. The second on 30 September 1996 underlined the need for the Commission to receive the French national list of proposed sites for the Natura 2000 network ((See annexes. )).

The Commission is aware of the difficulties being faced by all Member States in implementing the habitats Directive. Nevertheless, there is no uncertainty in the Directive concerning the obligations of Member States to present their national list of proposed sites, and there is no justification for delays in presenting them to the Commission. The deadline for submission of the national lists to the Commission was June 1995.

The Commission will take appropriate legal action against Member States which have not fulfilled the requirements of the Directive, in particular the transmission of national lists of sites to be protected under the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Community financing for the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region

Can the Commission indicate the total Community financing for the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region and the specific financing for each objective under the Structural Funds and the EAGGF guidance section?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3645/96, E-3646/96, E-3647/96, E-3648/96, E-3649/96, E-3650/96, E-3651/96, E-3652/96, E-3653/96, E-3654/96, E-3655/96, E-3656/96, E-3657/96, E-3658/96, E-3659/96, E-3660/96, E-3661/96, E-3662/96, E-3663/96, E-3664/96, E-3665/96, E-3666/96, E-3667/96, E-3668/96 and E-3669/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 February 1997)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Telecommunications

In connection with the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive relating to telecommunications terminal equipment and satellite earth station equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity (COM(95) 612), in order to make Community law as clear and transparent as possible, the Commission, in its decision of 1 April 1996, decided that its services should officially codify legal acts at the latest after the tenth amendment made to them.

Can the Commission ensure that Directive 89/336 ((OJ L 139, 23.5.1989, p. 19. )) on electromagnetic compatibility is adopted as soon as possible, in order to avoid confusion regarding the repeal of Article 10(4), laid down in Article 9(4) of Directive 91/263 ((OJ L 128, 23.5.1991, p. 1. ))?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)

The provisions of the electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) directive (89/336/EEC) have applied since 1 January 1992. However its wide scope demonstrated the overriding need to provide for a transitional period, so as to ensure a harmonious changeover from the application of systems of a purely national character to an exclusive Community system since the EMC directive is a comprehensive harmonisation directive. On 28 April 1992, the Council adopted Directive 92/31/EEC ((OJ L 126, 12.5.1992. )) to allow a transitional period until 31 December 1995. Therefore the EMC directive came into force on 1 January 1996.

A consolidated version of Directive 89/336/EEC, which was amended not only by Directive 92/263/EEC but also by Directives 92/31/EEC, 93/68/EEC ((OJ L 220, 30.8.1993. )) and 93/97/EEC ((OJ L 290, 24.11.1993. )), has not yet been drafted in order not to mislead the European industry with different codes for a legislation that is mandatory only since the beginning of 1996.

However, in general terms, the Commission considers that a consolidated version of Directive 89/336/EEC should be available after a sufficient lead time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2525/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (8 October 1996)

Subject: Establishment plan of DG I, Directorate B

Given the controversy regarding the recruitment of staff to Directorate B in DG I (relations with the countries of Latin America) and the establishment plan of that directorate, would the Commission make known the number of people responsible for managing the development aid programme for Latin American countries and specify the number of officials of Italian nationality working in Directorate B and the percentage of its overall staff that they represent?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (4 November 1996)

I would inform the Honourable Member that there are at present 36 A-grade officials working at the Latin America directorate in Brussels.

Of these A-grade officials, ten are Italian nationals.