ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2998/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Statements by the EU representative in Turkey

From his statements to the Turkish and European press, it would appear that Mr M Lake, the EU representative in Turkey, is failing to take account of the policies and positions adopted by the Community institutions with regard to Turkey. He appears to be - intentionally or unintentionally - disregarding all violations of human rights by Turkey, creating the impression that he is Turkey's Ambassador to the EU rather than the EU's representative in Turkey.

What is the Commission's reaction to this? For how long has Mr Lake occupied his present post as EU representative in Turkey, and when will he be transferred?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (20 December 1996)

Since taking up his appointment, the Commission's representative in Turkey has always faithfully expressed the Commission's views. He has, furthermore, consistently paid close attention to and reported on the work of the other Community institutions, notably Parliament.

The Commission has full confidence in its representative in Turkey.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2786/96 by Antonio Trizza (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)

Subject: Completion of the trans-European networks

What steps does the Commission intend to take if, on 14 October 1996 in Luxembourg, the rejection of the request for Lit 2 000 billion to speed up completion of the trans-European networks is formally confirmed?

According to reports in the specialized press, the Finance Ministers of the European Union meeting in Dublin took up position against the request, thus frustrating the efforts made by the Commission and, above all, going against the views repeatedly expressed by the European Parliament since the Essen and Corfu summits and since the beginning of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Confirmation of this position would jeopardize the essential project to establish an Adriatic corridor linking northern Europe and the south, and would cause grave damage to the southern economy as a whole, and that of Puglia in particular.

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

Although the Ecofin Council rejected the Commission proposal to increase the commitment ceiling for the trans-European transport networks budget line in the years 1998 and 1999, the Community is nevertheless providing substantial financial support for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T).

According to the present financial perspectives, the funds from the TEN-T budget line amount to 1 800 MECU in the period 1995-1999. There are also considerable funds available through the structural funds, especially in Objective 1 regions. There is continuing and strong commitment to using these funds with maximum efficiency in order to achieve full benefit from the limited resources, including the fostering of public private partnerships. The main responsibility for financing the projects naturally remains with Member States. Clearly they stand to gain from the completion of the trans-European transport network as a whole.

The so called 'Adriatic corridor' project represents an alternative route to link the central regions of the Community and Italy to Greece and the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin, avoiding the inland route through the former Yugoslavia. It integrates rail and road infrastrcture, ports, links to ports and combined transport along the Adriatic coast, from Trieste to Brindisi. In 1995 the Community provided 1 MECU to finance a feasibility study for the project, which should provide decision makers with a range of technically feasible and economically viable options for the amelioration of transport services in the corridor, with particular emphasis on improving existing infrastructure. The study will also serve to develop executive studies of required investments in order to define a scenario for further action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3159/96 by Annemarie Kuhn (PSE) to the Commission (22 November 1996)

Subject: Europe's wool-washing installations and the environment

What procedures for purifying effluent water are in use, or prescribed, in the Member States' wool-washing installations?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 January 1997)

While Community law does not stipulate any specific requirements for treatment of waste water arising from wool washing, such discharges are required to be controlled according to the principles laid down in Council Directive 76/464/EEC ((OJ L 129, 18.5.1976. )) of May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, and Council Directive 80/68/EEC ((OJ L 20, 26.1.1980. )) of 17 December 1980 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances.

Waste water from wool washing processes contains biocides (such as organophosphates, organohalogens and pyrethroids) and substances with a high chemical oxygen demand which have an adverse effect on the oxygen balance. Under Directive 76/464/EEC, such substances are classified as List II. Article 7 of the Directive requires Member States to establish programmes in order to reduce pollution by these substances. All discharges are required to be authorized. Authorizations must contain emission standards based on water quality objectives.

Under Directive 80/68/EEC several of the biocides (such as the organophosphates and organohalogens) are classified as belonging to List I. Article 4 requires discharges of such substances to groundwater to be prohibited. Article 5 further requires discharges to groundwater of List II substances to be subject to prior investigations and limited so as to avoid pollution. Any disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of these substances must also be subject to prior investigation. An authorization to discharge may only be granted provided all the technical precautions for preventing groundwater pollution by List II substances are observed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2967/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Use of the Spanish letter 'ñ'

The letter 'ñ' is one of the letters which make up the alphabet of the Spanish language, one of the official languages of the European Union.

All too often, it is forgotten in documents and texts circulated by non-Spanish bodies and institutions in the European Union that 'ñ' is a letter in its own right and should be used as such.

The issue is even more serious when it involves the recognition of academic qualifications by non-Spanish universities and institutions and affects citizens whose names include the letter 'ñ'.

Will the Commission take steps to prevent the Spanish letter 'ñ' from being forgotten?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (13 December 1996)

The Commission has always paid very close attention to the special characters and signs of the different European languages in its policies regarding word-processing equipment and the presentation of publications.

When official texts are published, an inter-institutional committee decides on the conventions and rules of presentation to be observed. These are contained in a Vademecum for Editors circulated to all institutions ((1993 edition, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. )). The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities ensures that the rules laid down are observed, and places a specific obligation on its suppliers to faithfully reproduce special characters such as the Spanish letter 'ñ'.

When it comes to bodies which are not European institutions, the Commission considers that this matter falls outside its field of competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2880/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Further complications with funding for training the unemployed and combating social exclusion under the second CSF

In a recent statement, Commission representatives noted that: 'the vocational training centres did not comply with the procedure for assessing the programmes in accordance with Ministerial Decision No 108009 of 17 April 1995' and voiced serious reservations about funding those programmes from the second CSF.

In his most recent statements, the Greek Minister for Employment gave assurances that the above reservations would be allayed and that there would be a steady flow of funds for training programmes for the unemployed. However, the appropriations have been frozen again owing to 'problems' in the certification procedure.

1. What are the new problems which have led to the freezing of the appropriations and the certification procedure?

2. What does the Commission propose to secure the release of the appropriations?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 January 1997)

Immediately after the first checks had been carried out in 1995, upon discovery of the irregularities, the Commission questioned the certification work and asked the Member State's authorities to make good the shortcomings of the national certification centre. It advised the Greek authorities that the certification procedure had to be seen to be transparent and efficient before the 1996 programmes were started.

Despite the assurances given by the Greek authorities, the checks carried out in July 1996 by the Commission confirmed its fears. No action had been taken against those responsible for the irregularities and the work of the centre was characterised by the same lack of transparency, with further serious irregularities being discovered.

In view of the gravity of the situation and so as not to jeopardise the implementation of the new programmes, the Commission was forced to call for an immediate halt to the work of the centre in the hope of finding a solution to the problem in cooperation with the Member State. To this end, a working party set about drawing up proposals for establishing a new certification system.

With regard to the resumption of payments, the Commission, after examining the documents forwarded by the Member State, paid the final balance in respect of activities carried out in 1995, once the necessary adjustments had been made in the light of the checks carried out. The Commission asked the competent Greek authorities to provide it with an action plan for restructuring the services involved in administering the ESF programmes, and to give thought to policy priorities. On the basis of the foregoing, it suggested to the Ministry of Labour that, pending the introduction of the new certification system, a rudimentary programme be drawn up for implementing vocational training activities by means of reliable structures such as those under Regulation 815/84.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3548/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (12 December 1996)

Subject: Dublin and Bilbao agencies

Does the Commission consider that the powers of the Dublin Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and the Bilbao Agency for Safety and Health at Work have been sufficiently defined?

Does it consider that a new Regulation is required to ensure that there is no duplication or overlap in their work?

Is the Commission satisfied with the state of affairs as regards the work and powers of each of these agencies?

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

The Commission considers that the powers of the European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions in Dublin ((Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75; OJ L 139, 30.5.1975. )) and the European agency for safety and health at work in Bilbao ((Regulation (EEC) No 2062/94; OJ L 216, 20.8.1994 as modified by OJ L 156, 7.7.1995. )), are sufficiently defined in the respective regulations which establish them.

Both regulations specifically mention that these organisations should collaborate with other institutes, foundations and specialist organisations and existing programmes on a Community level in order to avoid any duplication of tasks. The Commission does not consider it necessary to prepare a new regulation in order to avoid duplication. In the case of the Bilbao agency, the regulation establishing it foresees a review procedure after a maximum period of five years since its coming into force. This procedure will be used by the Commission to propose any necessary changes to improve the functioning of the agency.

The Commission considers that both organisations are developing their activities in a generally satisfactory way. The Commission seeks at all times to ensure the coherence of their activities in order to obtain the maximum Community added-value and the maximum effectiveness of the resources contributed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3023/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Full accession of Somalia to the Fourth Lomé Convention

At the recent ACP-EU Council meeting in Western Samoa a resolution was adopted calling on all the interested parties to make the necessary arrangements for Somalia to be accepted as a full member of the Lomé Convention, a proposal which has also been put forward by the ACP-EU Joint Assembly.

What action has been, or is due to be, taken to achieve this objective?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (27 January 1997)

As Somalia can accede to the Lomé IV bis Convention on the basis of Article 364bis, the Commission's primary concern is to continue to work towards the fulfilment of basic conditions for accession, and in particular the restoration of a situation in which the Somali people find a sufficient level of governmental organisation to enable Somalia to request accession to the Convention. So long as this does not prove possible, the Commission will continue to confirm that from a political point of view Somalia belongs to the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) family, as already declared in the ACP-Community council of ministers resolution of June 1996.

As for the measures that could enable the Somali people to benefit from the range of European development fund (EDF) instruments, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the Commission is committed to continue to finance humanitarian operations out of the Community budget whilst rehabilitation operations in Somalia will continue to be funded using the balances remaining under Somalia's Lomé II and Lomé III national indicative programmes (5th and 6th EDF). In addition, as 7th EDF resources are no longer available to Somalia, because Somalia failed to ratify the Lomé IV Convention within the period foreseen in the Convention, other funds are mobilised in support of rehabilitation activities from various budget lines. Sufficient resources are thus available to continue to help the people of Somalia for the coming years.

Concerning the 8th EDF, the Commission recalls that a major measure adopted in favour of Somalia consists in the accelerated accession procedure agreed between the parties to the Convention at the end of 1995 in Mauritius and contained in Article 364bis which is a modification to the normal accession procedures allowing Somalia to join the Lomé IV Convention during its lifetime. Awaiting such accession and unless other modifications are adopted in the future in favour of Somalia by the parties to the Lomé Convention, the Commission is not in a position to assist Somalia unilaterally from 8th EDF resources. However, the Commission will continue to put forward ideas and suggestions if specific needs remain unmet. Within this context, a second rehabilitation programme amounting to 47 MECU has been adopted which will cover the needs for the coming years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3030/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (11 November 1996)

Subject: Infringement by the Italian Government of the principle of the free movement of capital

In connection with the privatization of the ENI the Italian Government has introduced the so-called 'golden share' which will give the Treasury special powers over privatized companies.

This constitutes a clear infringements of Articles 73b and 52 of the Treaty of Rome.

Is the Commission intending to publish its correspondence with Italy on this matter?

If the Commission does not receive satisfactory answers from the Italian Government, will it initiate an infringement procedure?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1997)

In its role as guardian of the EC Treaty, the Commission has been checking the privatization programmes undertaken by the Member States for compatibility with Community law. In this context, it has examined the measures introduced by the Italian authorities concerning the privatization scheme taking place in Italy. However, the Commission has not yet reached a final conclusion.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3637/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4303: Combating AIDS and certain other transmissible diseases

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading:

B3-4303: Combating AIDS and certain other transmissible diseases?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 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-3634/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4300: Public health, health promotion, information on health, health education and public health training

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading:

B3-4300: Public health, health promotion, information on health, health education and public health training?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 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-2850/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (23 October 1996)

Subject: Nuclear industry in the Slovak Republic

1. By what percentage are the additional costs for the reconstruction of Bohunice and the completion and retrofitting of Mochovce likely to exceed the costs as originally estimated?

2. (a) Experience suggests that with complex projects of this nature over a long period of time which is difficult to plan in advance the budget can be exceeded by several thousand percent. Are there any additional Hermes and Cofase financial guarantees, and who is responsible for this?

(b) Who assesses the needs?

(c) Who decides on whether to provide additional loans?

(d) Who pays the additional costs?

3. What liability obligations and costs are being borne by Siemens and Framatome, and what are the implications of this?

Joint reply to Written Questions E-2846/96, E-2848/96, E-2850/96, E-2852/96 and E-2854/96 (13 February 1997)

1. The Council attaches the greatest importance to the protection of the environment against the dangers of ionizing radiation. Article 80, concerning nuclear safety, of the Europe Agreement establishing the Association with the Slovak Republic stipulates that the aim of the cooperation is to provide for a safer use of nuclear energy. This aspect of cooperation covers several of the areas to which the Honourable Member refers and includes the exchange of information and experience and research and development activities.

2. The Honourable Member might also note that at the last Association Council meeting with the Slovak Republic the Community side stressed the importance of energy and, in particular, nuclear safety, for Slovakia and its role in the country's preparation for accession. The Community is strongly committed to a high level of safety in nuclear power stations and to close cooperation to achieve this. The Community stresses the need to ensure that Slovak nuclear power stations that do not conform to internationally recognized safety guidelines are shut down as soon as possible.

3. It should also be noted that the Slovak republic has acceded to the IAEA Convention (Vienna) on nuclear safety principles and has thereby subscribed to the safety requirements laid down by that Convention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3607/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B5-325: Community measures to assist tourism

With reference to the financial year 1995 and budget heading:

B5-325: Community measures to assist tourism

1. Can the Commission say whether subsidies were granted to associations, trade unions or employers' bodies?

2. If they were, can the Commission provide a breakdown of the exact amount of the subsidy for each association, trade union, body and activity?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 February 1997)

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