ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1622/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Directoria

How many letters has the Commission received from individual local authorities and associations of regional and local authorities concerning the last Directoria, and can the Commission summarize the main representations received?

How does the Commission plan to respond to the representations made in organising future Directoria?

Precisely when are these now planned?

Answer given on behalf of Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (29 July 1996)

Directoria, the interregional cooperation event which was held from 4 to 6 December last year, was attended by 516 delegations, i.e. a total of 1 147 people.

The replies to the survey of participant satisfaction conducted in the form of a questionnaire issued at the close of the event numbered 142. The question on whether the services offered by Directoria could help in preparing projects for responding to calls for proposals was answered as follows: 8%: very much; 58%: to a certain extent; 31%: a little; 3%: not at all. It emerged from the comments made by the participants on the questionnaires that some wanted the convention to be held in more spacious premises, the price of the meal to be included in the booking fee, and interpretation into a language other than those already available (five). The Commission has taken all these suggestions into consideration in the arrangements being made for the next Directoria, which will probably be held at the beginning of 1997.

Some of the letters received before the event stated that the booking fee was too high.

A letter signed by 57 offices representing regional authorities in Brussels proposed a closer partnership between the Commission and these offices in preparing the Directoria. The offices suggested improvements involving the cost of participation and the number of catalogues per delegation and more opportunities for meeting the officials who manage projects under Article 10 of the Regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) ((Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, as amended: OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). The Commission intends to reply positively to these suggestions and has proposed meetings with a delegation from the offices.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/96 by Luigi Florio (UPE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Suggested reduction in Community salaries

A few months ago the media reported that the head of the Finnish Government suggested to the President of the Commission, Mr Santer, that the pay of the staff of the Community institutions should be reduced in order to prevent a middle-ranking Finnish official from earning more than the Prime Minister.

What response did this proposal receive?

Does the Commission agree that the salaries paid - at all levels - in the Community institutions are excessively high?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (29 July 1996)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2963/95 of 18 December 1995 ((OJ L 310, 22.12.1995. )) regarding the remuneration of officials of the European Communities.

The Commission feels that an objective comparison with the remuneration in national civil services can only be made on the basis of comparable living and working conditions, i.e. a comparison with national civil servants working abroad. It is not possible, therefore, for the Commission to comment on Community levels of remuneration, any more than on national levels.

The Commission wishes to point out that the level of remuneration of Community officials was examined and finally determined during the 1991 negotiations on the method of adjustment of remuneration.

The method was adopted by the Council in December 1991 and will be in operation for ten years. It is based on the principle that the remuneration of Community officials should keep pace with the average remuneration of national civil servants in the Member States, while also applying a measure of salary restraint.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1363/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies for associations, NGOs and various bodies

For Item B7-7000 (Programme for democracy in the countries of central and eastern Europe), can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs or other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies, together with the exact amount of such subsidies during the last financial year for which the accounts have been closed?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1363/96, E-1367/96 and E-1368/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The Commission seeks to ensure the greatest possible openness in the use made of the Community budget, including those parts of it covering human rights activities.

Specific information is provided for headings B7-7000, 7040 and 7070. At the end of the financial year, a report on the use these headings have been put to is sent to the President of Parliament and the Chairman of the relevant parliamentary committee along with full details of the recipient associations, NGOs and other bodies awarded grants and the amount of support each has received.

This year, a report on the use made of funding for all human rights budget headings was set out in a Commission communication. ((COM(95) 191 final. ))

The Honourable Member will find all the information he requests in these reports.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1527/96 by Jan Bertens (ELDR) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Lomé Convention Forest Protocol

As part of the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, a Protocol on the sustainable management of forestry resources was adopted.

1. What specific measures are the Commission and the ACP States taking to implement this Protocol in practice?

2. What safeguards will the Commission put in place to protect intact areas of primary forest from commercial logging?

3. What priority will be given to the needs and interests of the local people?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)

1. The new protocol no 10 in the Lomé IV-bis Convention serves as the new basis for the programming of the forest sector in the national and regional programmes in the 8th European development fund (EDF).

Furthermore the Commission will translate the provisions of the protocol into a coherent strategy on forest development cooperation which will be presented as a communication to the Council and the Parliament. The Commission is also preparing guidelines and working material for operational and technical services as well as for delegations in order to ensure a high quality of projects and programmes in the field.

The protocol will serve as a general reference for policy dialogue with ACP countries.

2. The Commission has in the past launched major initiatives on the conservation of biodiversity in protected areas. All projects are based on bilateral agreements with the governments concerned. Nevertheless, there are cases where such protected areas are subject to commercial logging. The Commission will continue - based on policy dialogue -to undertake steps to make the governments aware of the need for a revision of these logging concessions.

3. Protocol no 10 gives priority to actions in favour of local populations. The needs of indigenous and forest dependant people will be actively assessed and included in all forestry programmes of the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1162/96 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Recognition of pilots' licences

Is the Commission aware that a pilot's licence for passenger aircraft which has been issued in one Member State is not valid in the others?

While it would be useful for a pilot to attend a course on the legislation of the Member State in which he wishes to have his original licence recognized, requiring him to sit a new test in order to be granted a new licence valid only in the country of issue certainly would not.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1996)

Mutual acceptance of pilot licences within the Community is regulated by Council Directive No 91/670/EEC of 16 December 1991 ((OJ L 373, 31.12.1991. )). Under the provisions of this Directive acceptance of licences can be by general authorisation (recognition) or by express consent (validation). Validation of licences can be granted either on the basis of equivalence or experience.

The purpose of the Directive is to promote the free movement and establishment of personnel within the Community. A Member State must, when accepting a licence issued by another Member State, respect the general provisions of the EC Treaty (Articles 48, 52 and 59) on freedom of movement and right of establishment as well as the general principles and case law of the Court of Justice on mutual recognition. A Member State may not therefore, without infringing its obligations as laid down in the Treaty, 'require a national of a Member State to obtain those qualifications, which in general it determines solely by reference to its own national education and training system, where the person concerned has already acquired those qualifications in another Member State'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1775/96 by Erich Schreiner (NI) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Allegations that Mr Pirzio-Biroli claimed perks to which he was not entitled

According to press reports (Täglich Alles of 16/17 April 1995) a residence rented by the Commission continued to be available, rent-free, to Mr Pirzio-Biroli, Commissioner Fischler's chef de cabinet, after he took up his duties in Brussels at the beginning of January 1995. He is also alleged to have used the EU Vienna Delegation's official car at no cost to himself.

Are these reports true?

How long did the EU residence in Vienna continue to be used, free of charge, by Mr Pirzio-Biroli and his family as a second residence?

Is an official car with a chauffeur still made available to him, at no cost, when he visits Vienna? If so, why?

Does the Commission intend to reclaim the accommodation and transport costs which continued, unjustifiably, to be paid on Mr Pirzio-Biroli's behalf after he was posted to Brussels?

If so, when and what are the sums of money involved?

If not, why not?

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

Mr Pirzio-Biroli took up his duties as head of cabinet in January 1995. It is the policy of the Commission, on a change of head of delegation, to continue the lease of the residence in order to avoid costs incurred on the arrival of a successor, such as hotel accommodation, agency fees for a new lease (these are quite high in Austria, namely three months rent) and modifications especially as far as security equipment is concerned.

In the case of Mr Pirzio-Biroli, it was intended to apply the same approach. However, as a result of the delay in appointing a successor, the Commission decided to give up the lease on the house and exercised the clause requiring three months notice. Mr Pirzio-Biroli's family continued to occupy the house until the period of three months notice had been completed.

An official car is not available to Mr Pirzio-Biroli for private purposes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/96 by Mark Killilea (UPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: HANDYNET Programme

The European Commission has improved NGO and direct-user involvement in the HANDYNET initiative, and some NGOs are beginning to be seriously consulted and involved.

Can the Commission say what new plans and what budget it proposes to improve this user involvement?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 July 1996)

The Commission has increased the direct involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in development work, activities and projects under the Handynet system. Examples include the creation of statistical software for the provision of useful information contributing to the improvement of a system to be made available to end-users. This has been placed at the disposal of more than 50 establishments (35 NGOs and 15 national collection centres for Handynet data). It is the Commission's intention to pursue this interactive approach, in conjunction with the parties concerned. The Commission is unable to provide the requested information on funding, as the budget authorities have not yet adopted the budget for 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2098/96 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Jubilee celebrations of the year 2000 in Rome

In view of the importance, from both a cultural and a religious point of view, of the jubilee celebrations of the year 2000 in Rome for Italy and, indeed, for Europe as a whole, could the Commission say whether there will be special funding for the event and, if not, what the arrangements are for submitting an application for funding or for obtaining information regarding the opportunities available under official Community programmes? Could it also say whether there is any possibility of securing EU support for the celebrations?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

1. For the moment there are no specific plans for funding Millennium celebrations, but the question is being considered. Furthermore, the Community is supporting cultural and artistic events over a period of three years through the Kaleidoscope programme. ((OJ C 114, 19.4.1996. )) In the light of the experience gained, the Commission will present new proposals for renewing this programme in due course.

To receive a Community subsidy, certain conditions must be met. These are given in the calls for proposals published each year and include the European dimension (co-organizers and participants from at least three Member States), the quality and the exemplary nature of the project.

2. Commission patronage is possible, in principle, as long as the events meet the criteria defined in the rules on patronage ((SEC (94) 9210. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0688/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Council (27 March 1996)

Subject: Anti-personnel mines

Bearing in mind the objectives of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and in view of the fact that a number of the countries taking part in the Euro-Asian Summit in Bangkok have already spoken out clearly in favour of a total ban (Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines and Malaysia), it would have been of great importance for the subject to be dealt with at the Summit.

What decisions or guidelines were drawn up within the Council with a view to the Summit, and what stand did the Summit take on this issue?

Reply (14 October 1996)

Since May 1995, when the joint action on anti-personal mines was adopted, the European Union has redoubled its efforts to point out the scourge which the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines represents for civilian populations. In the framework of this joint action, the Member States of the Union have implemented a joint moratorium on the export of the anti-personnel mines, and intense diplomatic activity has been engaged in to prepare for the Conference of States party to the Convention on 'inhumane weapons' and to ensure that this leads to positive results.

One of the fundamental problems that arises in connection with the above Convention is the small number of States that have ratified it. The Honourable Member will note that some of the non-member States mentioned in his question are not parties to the Convention. In these cirumstances, the fact that anti-personnel mines and the negotiations under way at the time of the Euro-Asian Summit on the Inhumane Weapons Convention, and in particular on Protocol II thereof, were not mentioned at the Summit, is not surprising.

The Conference of States party to the Convention ended on 3 May with an outcome which overall constitutes significant progress both in terms of the amended Protocol II adopted by the Conference and in terms of the development of humanitarian law in general. However, as regards specific bans, the outcome only partially fulfils the objectives of the Union's joint action. The Council can assure the Honourable Member that in the framework of the CFSP intense efforts will continue to be made to ensure that the problem of mines remains a priority for international action and to promote universal accession to the Convention. Our Asian partners will doubtless be among those reached by the Union's diplomatic activity as it continues its initiative on anti-personnel mines.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/96 by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Selection procedure under the framework research programme for basic socio-economic research (TSER) - Part II - research on training - 1995 selection procedure

How many applications were submitted and how many were approved? What is the ratio of qualitative to purely quantitative research in the successful applications?

Does the Commission agree that vocational training for women in the countries of the EU still needs close attention if we are to do justice to the precept of equal opportunities? How many applications were submitted for research concerning women and how many were approved? How many of the outside experts who assess applications have solid experience of research concerning women?

Were the funds made available for 1995 used in full?

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the decision-making processes for the next selection procedure, in 1996, are more transparent?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1996)

In implementing area II - research on education and training - of the Targeted socio-economic research (TSER) programme, the Commission has received 195 applications in response to the first call for proposals in March 1995. Given the funds available 12 projects have been selected for funding. Two projects aim at establishing data bases, according to one of the priorities expressed in Council Decision 94/915/EC ((OJ L 361, 31.12.1994. )). Since all research is, to some extent, based on data or other empirically quantifiable findings, all projects funded up to now include quantitative elements.

The Commission agrees that the vocational education and training of women has to be given particular attention. Issues of particular interest for women are implicitly included in many of the applications and also in the projects finally selected for funding. 30 independent experts took part in the selection process. The composition of the expert selection panel ensured multidisciplinary expertise.

The 1995 funds available for activities in TSER area II were entirely exhausted within the first call for proposals.

Work is under way in order to increase further the transparency of the selection procedures, especially by clarifying and differentiating the selection criteria.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1570/96 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Disowning of parents

The Italian media recently reported that children could appeal to the courts to change parents, on the grounds of mistreatment.

1. What steps can the Commission take to prevent this practice from spreading within the Member States of the European Union?

2. Would it not agree that European legislation should be enacted with a view to establishing the rights of both minors and parents?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 July 1996)

The Community does not have any competence to regulate the rights of minors and parents in the Member States. Actions in this field are limited to the exchange of information and good practices.

All Member States signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and it lies within their responsibility to ensure implementation where necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2299/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Draft code of practice on the employment of disabled people

When does the Commission intend to publish its draft Code of Practice on the Employment of Disabled People, referred to in the Green Paper on Social Policy in 1994 and still not published in 1996?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2150/96 ((see page 116. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1249/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: Conservation of natural resources (fishing)

Regarding the conservation of natural resources and fishing rights, the main objective of the structural measures to prevent the depletion of fishery resources, generally attributed to a combination of excess capacity and over-exploitation, is to reduce the number of fishing boats. Such measures should be accompanied by socio-economic measures to cushion the effects of the restructuring of fishing and the fishing fleet on the communities concerned as far as possible.

The Community institutions and those of the Member States should therefore encourage and step up fisheries research as a matter of urgency, by promoting the dissemination of techniques and existing scientific data, collecting new data and carrying out research programmes both on fishery resources and on fishing techniques.

Will the Commission coordinate the various research areas, to avoid a duplication of efforts, promoting closer coordination between the existing research institutes and creating a data bank at Community level? This would contribute to improving the overall efficiency of the system.

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The Fair programme (agriculture and fisheries, including agro-industry, food technologies, forestry, aquaculture and rural development), included in the fourth framework programme (1994-1998) was adopted in December 1994. The research activities in the field of fisheries and aquaculture cover the areas of impact of environmental factors on aquatic resources, ecological impact of fisheries and aquaculture, biology of species for optimization of aquaculture, socio-economic aspects of the fishing industry, improved methodology and upgrading of fishery products.

Moreover the studies in support of the fisheries common policy (budgetary line B2-181) are used to a great extent to co-finance and co-ordinate the collection of basic data. This collection of basic data (catches, biological sampling, fleet dynamics) is the basis for sound fisheries research but needs to comply with some basic requirements in terms of globality and duration. Although the budgetary line increased significantly in recent years it is highly desirable that better mechanisms are introduced, which could guarantee those requirements.

During recent years communications of the Commission on fisheries in the Community have covered maintenance, extension and creation of data bases appropriate to the implementation of the common fishery policy ((COM(93) 501 final. )), European fisheries research - current position and prospects ((C0M(93) 95 final. )), data base for evaluation of biological impact of fisheries ((SEC(94) 1453. )) and co-operation and coordination of the use of heavy equipment for fisheries research ((COM(95) 392 final. )).

The communications have been discussed at the different levels of the Council, and the Commission has been invited to make a proposal which could help to improve the existing mechanisms.