ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0840/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Customs fraud involving tobacco

In view of the recent press reports concerning tobacco-related customs fraud, the value of which is apparently in the region of Esc 200 billion (Esc 16 billion in Portugal alone), would the Commission answer the following questions?

1. What relationship exists between this kind of fraud and the temporary arrangements established for the purposes of the internal market?

2. is it true that the absence of physical checks facilitates fraud?

3. Is it possible to identify the transport companies involved?

4. Could a list be published of the amounts of fraud by country of origin of the companies involved?

5. What action is the Commission proposing to take to recover the unpaid amounts of tax on consumption, in view of the fact that the companies concerned were required to lodge a financial guarantee?

6. What preventive measures to monitor, deter and counteract fraud are to be adopted for the future? Or does the Commission consider the existing system to be satisfactory?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1996)

The Commission is aware of a number of large scale cigarette smuggling cases, some of which involve Portugal. The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-3638/95 by Mr Wynn ((OJ C 112, 17.4.1996. )).

Frauds involving misuse of the transit regimes have become more frequent in recent years. The system is abused by the illegal introduction of cigarettes without paying customs duties, VAT and excises. In this respect, it should be noted that a single container-load of cigarettes can represent duties or taxes amounting to one MECU.

Controls are the responsibility of Member States. Well-targeted selective physical checks are an essential element in any control system.

Legal proceedings continue in cigarette smuggling cases in the Member States concerned. The Commission is unable therefore to divulge details.

Recovery of duties evaded is also the responsibility of Member States. The transit regimes are based upon a system involving a financial guarantee which is intended to ensure the payment of duties. Cigarettes are sensitive goods for which the comprehensive security has recently been temporarily forbidden ((Commission Decision 95/521/CE, OJ L 299, 12.12.1995. )). This guarantee was recognised not to be sufficient considering the high level of taxation on cigarettes. This is why a guarantee for a single operation covering all the duties involved now applies.

The Commission would finally point out that reinforcing the transit regimes is necessary as recently indicated in its 1996 anti-fraud work programme ((COM(96) 17. )). This contains initiatives on the administrative, legal and operational levels. Among them, the activities of the cigarette task group are currently being developed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1374/96 by James Provan (PPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Delays to payments from the European Social Fund

What is the Commission doing to eliminate the lengthy delays to payments from the European Social Fund to the authorities in the Member States, delays caused by administrative procedures in Brussels, and causing great hardships to recipients, who often incur interest charges while awaiting payments from Brussels? What compensation is available from charities, voluntary groups and local authorities which incur interest charges due to these delays?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1996)

As outlined in the joint reply the Commission gave to Oral Questions H-566/95, H-584/95, H-605/95, H-634/95, H-635/95, H-636/95, H-637/95 by Mrs Pollack and others during question time at Parliament's September 1995 part-session ((Debates of Parliament n° 4-467 (September 1995). )) and in the reply it gave to Oral Question H-231/96 by Mr McMahon during question time at Parliament's April 1996 part-session ((Debates of Parliament (April 1996). )), the system for the European social fund payments is governed by the provisions of Article 21 of the structural funds coordination Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). As was explained in the replies, the Commission can not release European social fund (ESF) funding until the Member States have introduced a demand for payment which is based on accurate, auditable data in relation to actual expenditure already incurred by beneficiaries in accordance with the priorities for the measures and the financial plan of the programmes. Once the conditions are fulfilled and a request is received from the Member State, the payments by the Commission are effected as soon as possible and as a general rule within 60 days.

The Commission is working closely with all the national authorities to identify areas for improvements in the claiming systems within Member States. It is, however, primarily the responsibility of the Member States to take the necessary steps in order to improve their capacity in triggering the release of the ESF funds.

The ESF provides support by co-financing the eligible costs of the actions agreed under each operational programme or single programming document.

While the Commission recognises the particular operational difficulties encountered by certain organisations (in particular non-governmental organisations), the position on interest charges incurred as a result of delays in payments is that these are not regarded as eligible expenditure. The ESF committee set up under Article 124 of the EC Treaty and operating under the provisions of Article 28 of the coordination Regulation has continuously upheld the position that such interest charges cannot be deemed an eligible cost.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Small and medium-sized undertakings (SMUs)

The fact that an agreement in principle has been reached on the main part of the Third Action Programme for the benefit of SMUs (1997-2000) recently adopted by the Commission is to be welcomed.

The Commission intends to submit the report by March 2000. Many people would like to see the submission of the programme brought forward by at least 12-13 months.

In accordance with the approach adopted by Commissioner Papoutsis with regard to the financial allocation for the programme, can the Commission confirm the amount of ECU 180 m questioned by certain Member States, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, in view of the increase in the number of Member States (from 12 to 15) and the important role SMUs play in job creation?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)

The Commission welcomes the Honourable Member's positive approach to the draft third action programme in favour of SMEs (1997-2000) ((OJ C 156, 31.5.1996. )).

As regards the programme evaluation procedure provided for in Article 6 of the proposal for a Decision, sufficient resources must be made available to carry out this evaluation. It may be possible to bring it forward a few months but not a whole year, as the fairly long preparation time must be taken into account.

The Commission welcomes the fact that the Honourable Member shares the Commission's position on providing funding of ECU 180 million, particularly with a view to the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in job creation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1116/96 by Luigi Florio (UPE) to the Council (26 April 1996)

Subject: Policy of milk quotas

Does the Council not consider that the Community's milk quota policy should be done away with and the dirigism it has entailed in the last decade rapidly replaced with a free market policy?

Is the Council aware that there are countries such as Italy in which the milk quota policy means that production is well below domestic requirements, so that the entire production system is being dismantles?

Will the Italian Presidency tackle the milk quota issue and consequently include it in the broader context of a general review of the entire agricultural policy, which is now based far too much on the dirigiste system of quotas?

Reply (7 August 1996)

The milk quota regime, which has allowed production to be curbed in a sector where large surpluses were previously common, is to remain in place until the year 2000. Several Member States have already, on many occasions, emphasized the difficulties created by the production limits imposed on them by the regime.

The Commission has already announced its intention of reviewing the question of the future production regime in the milk sector, with a formal proposal to the Council following in due course. The Commission will make allowance for the various constraints which will be placed on the Community, including the estimates of production and consumption in the Member States, the Community's international obligations and the budget guideline.

In carrying out its review the Commission will of course seek advice from all the requisite quarters, and this will be the basis for drawing up the future Community policy.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1115/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (25 April 1996)

Subject: Driving licence directive

Under Council Directive 91/439/EEC ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p.1. )), due to come into force on 1 July 1996, driving licences may be issued to drivers suffering from diabetes mellitus and requiring insulin treatment only in very exceptional cases. Although I welcome the Commission's policy of improving road safety standards and I recognize that diabetes can impose limitations on its sufferers, I have been informed that it can be managed effectively in almost all cases.

In view of this, does the Commission not consider that this directive will unnecessarily further restrict the freedom of diabetes sufferers?

What consultation did the Commission undertake during the drafting of the directive with the relevant interest groups? Could it produce evidence to show that this minimum standard of physical fitness is necessary to hold a driving licence?

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

Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences provides that, as from 1 July 1996, driving licences may be issued or renewed only in very exceptional cases to applicants or drivers of heavy goods or passenger carrying vehicles suffering from diabetes mellitus and requiring insulin treatment and then only where duly justified by authorized medical opinion and subject to regular medical check-ups. For drivers of cars or motorbikes, the Directive provides that driving licences may be issued to applicants or renewed for drivers suffering from diabetes mellitus, subject to authorized medical opinion and regular medical check-ups appropriate to each case.

These standards have been widely discussed with national medical experts and are more flexible than those specified in the first Council Directive (80/1263/EEC) on driving licences ((OJ L 375, 31.12.1980. )) which remains in force until 1 July 1996. The Commission reviewed these standards with national experts on 15 April 1996 and the conclusion was that the standards are appropriate.

In the context of this consultation, the Commission has contacted the International diabetes federation to keep it informed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1257/96 by Umberto Bossi (ELDR) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: Disparities in the date of publication of Community programmes in the various national languages

When publishing application forms for competitions, calls for proposals or expressions of interest, or background documentation for framework programmes, the Commission nearly always chooses English, German, and sometimes French, as priority languages for the translation and distribution of the relevant material. As a result, those from other Member States interested in Community programmes receive the forms or documentation in their national language only after a considerable delay.

This clearly disadvantages companies or private citizens in other European states, who do not necessarily have a perfect understanding of these languages, since the deadlines for requests or applications remain unchanged even for the states whose national language is not German, English or French.

Does the Commission not consider that this amounts to a tacit endorsement of unfair competition between the various Member States, and is to some extent, one of the reasons why the countries which benefit most from Community subsidies are precisely Germany, France and the United Kingdom?

If the delays in the distribution of material are due to translation problems, how and when will the Commission tackle these shortcomings?

Does the Commission not consider that, as a temporary measure until such time as publication dates for all Community languages can be standardized so as to give equal opportunity to private citizens and companies throughout Europe, the deadlines for applications or requests by private citizens or companies experiencing considerable delays in obtaining the appropriate material in their national language should at least be extended?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

It is Commission policy to publish the Official Journal simultaneously in all eleven official languages. The Commission will carefully look into any instances of particular language versions being published late.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1496/96 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Conversion of Karpas Peninsula monastery into tourist facilities

The occupying regime in northern Cyprus has converted the Panayia Monastery of Eleousa-Sina on the Karpas Peninsula, which dates from the 15th century, into a hostel and restaurant for tourists.

Given that the Panayia Church at Eleousa was designated an ancient monument pursuant to the Law on Antiquities enacted by the Republic of Cyprus in 1964 and that this act of sacrilege is a flagrant affront to the Greek and European cultural heritage, does the Commission intend to take any action?

Bearing in mind that the occupying regime has repeatedly violated the cultural heritage in the occupied territories in the past and been condemned by Parliament and the Commission for doing so and in view of the customs union between the EU and Turkey, how will the Commission respond?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The Commission does not have information on the matter raised by the Honourable Member but refers the Honourable Member to its joint answer to Written Question E-1413/96 and E-1432/96 by Mr Kaklamanis ((OJ C 322, of 28.10.1996, p. 63 )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1068/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Extension of planning permission for landfill waste tipping at Aveley, Thurrock.

Is there any directive which the Commission could apply to take the British Government to the European Court of Justice for contravention of Community law in reference to this case of extended planning permission for landfill waste tipping against previous British Government assurances, without a public inquiry and causing great environmental nuisance? Which directive and relevant Commission officials may be consulted in relation to this issue?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1068/96, E-1069/96 and E-1070/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

1. Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) requires an environmental impact assessment to be carried out before development consent is granted for certain types of projects. Landfills for toxic and dangerous waste are listed in Annex I of Directive 85/337/EEC. This means that an assessment is always required before development consent is given for such landfills. Landfills for other types of waste are listed in Annex II. This means that an assessment is required if the Member State considers that the landfill is likely to have a significant environmental effect.

Where an assessment is required under Directive 85/337/EEC the public concerned and relevant environmental authorities must be consulted. It is for Member States to determine the manner in which the public is to be consulted, whether by written submissions or by public inquiry. The final development consent decision is a matter for the decision-taking authority. In reaching that decision, however, it must take account of the results of the assessment.

2. As the common position (EC) No 4/96 adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council directive on the landfill of waste ((OJ C 59, 28.2.1996. )) was rejected by the Parliament on 22 May 1996, no specific directive currently exists.

However, Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991. )), says that 'Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

- without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals,

- without causing a nuisance through noise or odours,

- without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Member States shall also take the necessary measures to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste.'
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1490/96 by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Decontamination of the Berlaymont building in Brussels

Reports have recently appeared in the Belgian press about incidents which have occurred during the decontamination work on the Berlaymont building in Brussels. In particular, there have been reports of decompression creating a risk of asbestos fibres from the building escaping.

Will the Commission contact the competent authorities to request that:

1. all precautions be taken to guarantee the safety of workers and local residents and

2. an independent expert be appointed to permanently monitor the level of asbestos-fibre pollution in the air, assess the risk and inform the public and authorities concerned of the results of those studies?

Answer given by Mr. Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The Honourable Member must be aware that the Commission exercises no direct power with regard to the decontamination work on the Berlaymont building. Under the aegis of 'SA Berlaymont 2000', the Belgian Buildings Authority (Régie des bâtiments belge) is in fact responsible for the general monitoring and supervision of the site. In this regard, the Authority employs its own experts and the contracting consortium also has an inspection body.

Moreover, the IBGE (The Brussels Institute for the Environment) monitors the environment at a regional level and the Ministry for Employment and Labour does so at a national level.

The Commission has its own consultants, who do not carry out controls themselves but who report to the Commission, on the basis of information obtained from the above bodies, which may be delayed.

With regard to the second point raised, the Commission is aware of an initiative from the Belgian minister on the matter, which should result in the authorities and the general public being better informed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1507/96 by Mark Killilea (UPE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Reduction in number of representatives on MEDIA II Juries

Will the Commission confirm that it has decided to reduce the number of representatives on juries selected to appraise and make recommendations on projects submitted under the MEDIA II Programme?

Can the Commission state exactly why it has made this decision and what it hopes to achieve by it?

Would not the Commission agree that this decision to reduce the number of representatives to fewer than the number of Member States will lessen the possibility of even representation of projects from countries or regions with low production capacity or restricted geographical and linguistic area, something that the programme actually seeks to avoid?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)

The term reduced membership on assessment panels is somewhat misleading in so far as the Media II programme is a completely new programme which does not function in the same way as Media I. The assessment panels are a new feature of the Media II programme which did not appear in the framework of Media I.

Projects will in the first instance be assessed according to their eligibility and the priority criteria of the programme with a positive discrimination in favour of projects submitted by applicants from Member States or regions with low production capacity. Projects deemed eligible after the first round will be submitted for consideration to assessment panels. The role and the composition of these panels has been discussed with the representatives of the Member States in the Media committee. Half of the experts on the first assessment panels came from Member States or regions with low production capacity.

The members of these panels are selected from lists provided by the Member States but are invited in their capacity of independent experts in a given field, and not as a representatives of Member States or regions. Their role is to advise the Commission (which is responsible for the final selection of the projects and is assisted in this task by the Media committee) and not to defend specific sectoral or other interests.

The Commission ensures that the specific needs and interests of Member States or regions with low production capacity are systematically taken into account in accordance with the very clear terms of the Council Decision establishing the Media II programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0839/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Trans-European networks (Lisbon-Valladolid project)

A change in political leadership in the Member States may disrupt projects which have already begun or which are just at the financial negotiation stage. In Portugal, a Member State which is severely lacking in communications infrastructures suitable for inclusion in the trans-European network, the recent parliamentary elections provide an illustration of this tendency.

Changes in projects and/or routes create controversy in which ministers from the previous government stress the advantages of the shelved project and the shortcomings of its replacement, whilst the current government takes precisely the opposite view, with the result that assessing the two opposing projects objectively is not an easy task.

Could the Commission say what the repercussions could be, from the Community financing point of view, of the decision by the current government to replace the project for a Lisbon-Valladolid motorway by another one with a different route which effectively downgrades this transport link?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)

According to the information currently in the Commission's possession, uncertainties in the definition and alignment of the Lisbon to Valladolid project will have no implications for the level of Community funding for the Lisbon-Valladolid project provided that proposed changes remain within the scope of trans-European network (TEN). Much will depend on the requests ultimately made by the Portuguese authorities for support from the TEN budget line, the Cohesion fund and the European regional development fund.