ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0553/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (14 February 1997)

Subject: Modification of the second Community support framework (CSF) for Greece

A redistribution of funds for Greece under the second CSF is about to take place. In view of the decisions to be taken jointly by the Commission and the Greek Government, it would, for the purposes of parliamentary control, be useful if information concerning the takeup levels of the second CSF for the period 1994-1996 were communicated.

1. What amounts have been allocated to Greece under the second CSF and what is the total takeup?

2. What are the amounts and takeup levels for the following operational programmes:

a) education and training;

b) health and welfare;

c) environment;

d) tourism and culture;

e) industry.

3. Can the Commission give information concerning the criteria for upward or downward adjustment and the sectors in which these will occur?

4. Will the Commission provide all information it considers useful?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1997)

European Regional Development Fund commitments for Greece for 1994-96 amount to ECU 4 525 million, i.e. 106 % of the amount programmed for that period and 46% of the amount programmed for 1994-99. Payments amount to ECU 3 135 million, which represents 69 % of commitments.

ERDF commitments and payments for 1994-96 for the programmes referred to by the Honourable Member are shown in the following table expressed in ecu million.

>TABLE>

European Social Fund commitment appropriations for Greece for 1994-96 amount to ECU 801.443 million (i.e. 31.30% of the total for 1994-99) and payments to ECU 531.959 million (i.e. 20.78% of the total for 1994-99). The situation regarding the programmes for which the Honourable Member has asked for more information is shown in the following table expressed in ecu million.

>TABLE>

(1) In 1995 and 1996 only, since the programme was adopted in 1995.

Assistance from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section) in the Greek CSF amounts to ECU 1 800 million, of which ECU 1 765 million are for the operational programmes. At 31 December 1996, 56% of this amount had been committed and 43% paid. The level of payments carried out up to the end of 1996 in relation to commitments (ECU 980.53 million) is 77 %.

The investments made with the help of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance under the fisheries operational programme for 1994-96 amount to ECU 37.1 million, i.e. 65% of the commitments (ECU 57.8 million) programmed for 1994-96 and 29% of those programmed for 1994-99.

The FIFG appropriations taken up for this same period amount to some ECU 23.890 million, i.e. 65% of commitments.

The decision to transfer amounts within the CSF is the responsibility the Monitoring Committee, whose next meeting is scheduled for September 1997. The Greek authorities and the Commission are collaborating closely on this matter so as to propose appropriate solutions at that meeting.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1233/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo September 1994 and the 1995 Social Summit

In view of the fact that the European Community committed itself, at the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, to take action to curb the current rapid rate of world population growth, does the Community plan to contribute its fair share, based on national income, of the $17 billion annual cost estimated to be necessary by the year 2000?

At the 1995 Social Summit an initiative was proposed whereby developed nations would contribute 20% of their development assistance to ensure that everyone in the world has access to food, clean water, primary healthcare (including family planning) and basic education.

What is the Commission's response to this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)

The Community has already reached its target to commit 300 MECU by the year 2000 in line with the objectives set out in the plan of action agreed at the International conference on population and development in 1994 (for more detailed information the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to written question E-407/97 from Mr Newens ((OJ C 217 of 17.7.1997, p. 179. ))). The Community maintains its commitment to support a wide range of population and reproductive health programmes throughout the developing world working in partnership with governments, international organisations and non-governmental groups.

As stated in the Council Resolution on human and social development and development cooperation of December 1996, the Commission places human and social development at the centre of development cooperation and supports the agreement reached at the World summit for social development. It should be noted that in line with the agreement such an approach is conditional on a mutual commitment between interested partners to allocate, on average, 20 % of donor countries'overseas development aid and 20 % of the recepient countries'national budget, respectively, to basic social programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1356/97 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Requests for asylum by EU subjects in other Member States

How many subjects of EU Member States have requested asylum in other EU Member States in the last five years?

In how many cases was asylum granted?

Can the number of requests for asylum by subjects of EU Member States be broken down in table form showing, for each host Member State, the origins of the asylum seekers?

Can the number of requests for asylum from subjects of EU Member States that have been granted be broken down in table form showing, for each host Member State, the origins of these refugees?

Can the Commission also provide information on the commonest forms of persecution in respect of which requests are made, and granted, for asylum?

In how many cases and in what Member States have requests for asylum been submitted by Spanish subjects suspected by the Spanish authorities of involvement in terrorist activities?

In how many cases, and in what Member States, has asylum been granted to Spanish subjects suspected by the Spanish authorities of involvement in terrorist activities?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

It should be noted that Member States, as set out in the Council Resolution of 20 June 1995 on minimum guarantees for asylum procedures ((OJ C 274, 19.9.1996. )), start from the point of view that, 'with due regard to the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, there should be no de facto or de jure grounds for granting refugee status to an asylum applicant who is a national of another Member State. On this basis, a particularly rapid or simplified procedure will be applied to the application for asylum lodged by a national of another Member State ...'.

The information provided by Member States to the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) confirm that the number of asylum applicants of nationals of Member States in other Member States is extremely low. The figures are available up to 1994 and show that:

- in 1992, four nationals of the then twelve Member States applied for asylum in another Member State: three in Belgium and one in Denmark ((European Commission, Migration statistics 1994, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1994. ));

- in 1993, thirteen nationals of Member States applied for asylum in another Member State: six in Belgium, two in Denmark, four in Spain and one in Portugal ((European Commission, Migration statistics 1995, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1995. ));

- in 1994, one national of a Member State applied for asylum in Italy ((European Commission, Migration statistics 1996, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996. )).

The information available to Eurostat does not, however, indicate the Member States of which the above-mentioned asylum-seekers are nationals, nor the outcome of each individual asylum application by the people concerned. These figures do not reveal either the forms of persecution in respect of which the requests were made.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1420/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Wild-caught primates

In its reply to my Question H-0135/97 ((Debates of the European Parliament (March 1997). )), the Commission explained once agin the present situation, but made no effort to answer the main point of my question which was to ask that the Commission place the burden of proof on importers of wild-caught primates to show that they cannot use captive-bred animals. Will it now attempt please, to answer this point?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1997)

In its answer to the Oral Question No H-135/97 by Mrs Pollack during question time at Parliament's March 1997 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (March 1997). )) the Commission pointed out that the number of primates needed for bio-medical research cannot be provided at present by the European breeding centres. For that reason the import of primates from third countries is necessary in order to satisfy the needs of European research.

Articles 19(4) and 21 of Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )) concerning the protection of laboratory animals provide for the possibility of special exemption for the use of non purpose-bred animals. The decision for this exemption must be taken under arrangements determined by the authority of the Member State concerned.

The Directive does not contain provisions allowing the Commission to control import of primates nor to request proof that no captive bred animals could be used. This lies within the competence of the authorities of the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1464/97 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Definition of unemployment

Given the inconsistencies in differing national measurements of unemployment, would the Commission advise what has been done to harmonize measures on definition of unemployment in the Union and has this resulted in any other broad definition of EU-wide unemployment than that used by the ILO?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1997)

In order to harmonise unemployment rates, the Commission has, for many years now, preferred the International Labour Office (ILO) definition of unemployment to administrative data which are, by their very nature, too dependent on the rules and policies in force in the Member States.

In 1994, a group of experts from all the Member States, international institutions such as the ILO, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) met on the Commission's initiative to examine whether the ILO definition of unemployment was still relevant or whether it needed to be expanded or supplemented. The almost unanimous recommendation of the group was to continue to apply the ILO definition of unemployment as rigorously as possible. The Commission is scrupulous in following this recommendation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0845/97 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Council (10 March 1997)

Subject: Policy in respect of items seized in connection with Community fraud

More than seven years after the entry into force of the regulation on the protection of trade marks and intellectual property rights, the scope of which has been extended to authors' rights, utility models and logotypes, customs checks have been carried out in the various Member States.

Since copying and fraud are activities with major implications at Community level, what legislative monitoring or coordination instruments are in operation? Is a proper dialogue being carried out between the Commission and Member States with a view to evaluating the impact of fraud and the measures to combat it?

Is the Council studying the possibility of setting up a monitoring and coordination body which would provide detailed information, by year and by country, concerning seizures and the statistical trends relating thereto? What means exist to ensure that some of the seizures are not diverted to the goods trade?

There is a legislative void regarding the fate of such items once they have been seized. The current arrangement is for them to be systematically destroyed. Are there any plans for measures to enable them to be put to good use through the donation thereof to charitable and humanitarian organizations such as Caritas and the Red Cross? Is the Council considering the possibility of providing a legal basis for a system enabling such seizures to be put to good use?

Answer (5 June 1997)

Council Regulation No 3295/94 ((OJ L 341, 30.12.1994, p. 8. )) lays down, in particular in its Articles 13, 14 and 15, a procedure for monitoring and coordinating measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods. Article 15 provides, in addition, for the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation of the system, on the basis of the information referred to in Aricle 14. Furthermore, Commission Regulation No 1367/95 ((OJ L 133, 17.06.1995, p. 2. )) lays down the procedure for mutual exchanges of information between the Commission and the Member States to be effected on a quarterly and annual basis.

As regards the fate of the goods seized, the Council refers to the reply to Written Question No 0065/97 by the Honourable Member, in which it is pointed out that there is nothing to stop the competent authorities from offering seized goods to charitable organizations. The question of providing at Community level a legal basis for a system enabling such seizures to be put to good use has not been considered in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1247/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (2 April 1997)

Subject: Initiative in respect of SMUs - Greek operational programme for 1994-1999

The initiative in respect of SMUs - the operational programme for 1994-1999 - which seeks to help SMUs adapt to the single market and become internationally competitive was adopted on 20 June 1995. Can the Commission provide information regarding the take-up rate in respect of each sub-programme and measure, and say how the intermediary body has so far handled the funding of SMUs within the framework of this vital operational programme which seeks, inter alia, to modernize SMUs so that they improve both their management structure and productive capacity?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1997)

The take-up rate of the Community Initiative 'Small and medium-sized enterprises' (SME) has been very low to date. Preparatory work, in particular the absence of a legal framework, the selection procedure for seven regional intermediaries, as well as the need for a coherent approach as regards initiatives in favour of SMEs, have required a considerable amount of time and partly explain the delays.

Mainly on account of and in order to respond to criticisms from the Court of Auditors as to the lack of coordination between the various ministries involved, the Greek authorities have set up an interministerial committee in charge of coordinating all initiatives for SMEs contained in the various regional and national programmes of the 1994-99 Community Support Framework for Greece (13 regional and 2 national operational programmes) as well as in the three CIs (including the SME Initiative). The Ministry for Development chairs this committee, which guarantees coherence amongst initiatives for SMEs (size of the companies, type of eligible initiative, public co-financing rate, etc).

In agreement with the Commission, the Greek authorities have recently set about creating public interest in these initiatives (including the SME Initiative). Companies have until 15 May to submit their requests, by which time the seven regional intermediary bodies should be fully operational so as to deal with company applications as quickly as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1282/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (10 April 1997)

Subject: Search for permanent nuclear waste storage site in eastern Belgium and Lorraine

For several years Belgium has been searching for a suitable site for the permanent storage of nuclear waste, apparently for waste with low radioactivity. The first choice of site near Amel (eastern Belgium) was shelved following strong transfrontier protests by the local inhabitants. Press reports now indicate that Bovigny could be the new site. It has also emerged ('Die Rheinpfalz', 4 March 1997) that plans are afoot to set up a permanent site in Lorraine - in this case, for highly radioactive waste - and a budget assessment procedure has already been initiated in this connection.

Will the Council say:

1. what information it has about the search for nuclear waste sites in the neighbouring countries of Belgium and France?

2. what substances and what quantities of these substances are due to be stored on a permanent basis in the earmarked sites in Belgium and France, respectively?

3. what standards are applied by the Belgian and French authorities in respect of the site requirements and the technical installations of a permanent nuclear waste site, and how it assesses these?

Answer (14 July 1997)

The Council attaches great importance to the question of permanent storage of radioactive waste and refers in this context to its Resolution of 19 December 1994 on radioactive-waste management ((OJ C 379, 31.12.1994, p. 1. )), in which it emphasized that the establishment of suitable facilities for the treatment, conditioning, storage and final disposal of radioactive waste makes a necessary and important contribution to the creation of a safe waste-management infrastructure in general.

These facilities should be established in compliance with the Community legislation in force, in particular Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation ((OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1. )) and Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive wastes between Member States and into and out of the Community ((OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24. )).

Furthermore, Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community stipulates that each Member State shall provide the Commission with general information relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form and that the Commission shall deliver its opinion within six months.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1588/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Europol Convention

What action is the Commission taking to encourage the speedy ratification by the Member States of the Europol Convention, in view of its importance to the fight against the sexual exploitation of children?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1997)

The Commission has, on several occasions, called on Member States to ratify speedily the Europol Convention. This is in line with the need to improve police cooperation and exchange of information at the Union level. These are essential elements for a more efficient fight against organized crime in general and against trafficking in human beings in particular, including trafficking in children.

Pending the implementation of the Europol Convention, the Council adopted in December 1996 a common action extending the mandate of the Europol drugs unit (EDU) to the field of trafficking in human beings. EDU has started to work on this issue since December 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1656/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Lifting of duty on Turkish textiles

It has been reported that the EU plans to lift the anti-dumping duty on imports of textiles from Turkey.

This special duty amounts to 10% and has been maintained even following the conclusion of the Customs Union with that country.

If this decision is taken, as appears likely, it will come before the case of the so-called 'free zones' in Turkey has been fully clarified: this is a reference to allegations that products from Pakistan and elsewhere are being imported into Turkey and then exported to the EU as 'Turkish' products, even though they are covered by the transit regime.

Will the Commission say whether it really intends to abolish this special duty, and whether it has considered the consequences such a decision will have for the products of EU Member States?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1997)

On 21 November 1996 the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey.

This anti-dumping duty was valid for a maximum period of six months. The Commission made a proposal to the Council for the imposition of definitive measures which the Council decided not to accept. There is consequently no longer an anti-dumping duty on this product.

Regarding the functioning of the Turkish free zones, the Commission closely follows this question in order to prevent any circumvention of the rules of the customs union in the textile sector. In that context, a Community mission went to Turkey last October to discuss this issue with the Turkish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2296/97 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (26 June 1997)

Subject: Outstanding appropriations for structural actions

Can the Commission provide the following information, as at 31 December 1996:

1. What were the outstanding appropriations for the EAGGF (Guarantee), the FIFG, the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund, broken down by Member State? Had these amounts been committed in 1996, 1995, 1994 or before?

2. What was the ratio between outstanding appropriations per Member State and commitments accumulated by each Member State over the period 1994-1996?

3. What was the comparative evolution of the execution of commitment appropriations, payment appropriations and outstanding appropriations?

4. What was the total in outstanding appropriations on 31 December in relation to the annual commitment appropriations?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.