ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0987/96 by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: L.IJ.N. project (Sint-Joris-Weert/Neerijse) in an area protected under the wild birds directive

The Flemish Water Supply Company is planning the 'L.IJ.N. project' in the middle of the Dijle valley in Sint-Joris-Weert/Neerijse. A drinking water reservoir is planned which would be fed by the Laan, Ijse and Nethen rivers. On the district plan this area is marked as a nature reserve. In 1989 the Dijle valley was noted by the European Community as a protected area under the wild birds directive. At the request of the Flemish environmental administration, a feasibility and project EIA have been carried out for this project. In this EIA various different sites were investigated which are all in the same nature reserve. It is clear that such a large-scale project will have a major impact on a previously unspoilt, open and ecologically extremely valuable nature reserve. There are, however, also alternative sites outside the Dijle valley nature reserve.

1. Is the Commission aware of this project?

2. Does it consider that such a project can be implemented in an area protected under the wild birds directive?

3. Is it convinced that a proper investigation has been made for alternative sites outside the Dijle valley nature reserve?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1996)

1. The Commission was not aware of the project.

2. According to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )) (habitats Directive), special protection areas (SPA) classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, as last amended by Council Directive 94/24/EC (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994). )) (birds Directive) are subject to the obligations arising under Article 6 of the habitats Directive.

According to Article 6(3), any project not directly necessary to the management of the SPA but likely to have a significant effect on it shall be subject to appropriate assessment. The national authorities can only agree to the project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, and they should investigate alternative solutions (Article 6(4)).

3. The current available information does not allow the Commission to deliver a definitive opinion on this specific project. The Commission has written to the Belgian authorities requesting details of this project and of the fulfilment of the obligations arising from Article 6 of the habitats Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Helios 2

When does the Commission plan to issue a formal document to the European Disability Forum on the Post Helios 2 initiative, specifically:

1. proposals for any interim actions pending adoption of a successor programme and

2. proposals for a successor programme?

Answer given by Mr. Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)

In accordance with its social action programme, the Commission has initiated widespread consultations on the most suitable Community initiatives to succeed the Helios II programme. This subject also regularly appears on the agenda for meetings of the Helios Advisory Committee and the European Disability Forum, although the advisory role of these bodies is limited, strictly speaking, to the implementation of the present programme.

Pending the outcome of the final assessment of the programme (first half of 1997), the Commission will pursue the other major objectives which it has set itself as part of its social action programme, particularly with regard to equal opportunities, employment and dialogue with disabled organisations. In this context, the European Disability Forum will be kept informed and will be involved in these initiatives as soon as they are formalised.

Moreover, the Commission is currently preparing a communication which will set out its overall strategy in the field of disability. This text will be presented to the other Community institutions and made available to all other interested bodies including in particular the European Disability Forum.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1445/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: 'Medical and scientific aid for Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia'

Is the Commission aware that the UK-registered charity 'Medical & scientific aid for Vietnam, Laos & Cambodia' established the 'Tam Diep rehabilitation centre' in Ninh Binh Province to assist victims of landmines and in particular has fitted hundreds of amputees with Jaipur limb and foot?

The charity is now planning to establish another centre in Quang Tri. Will the Commission assist with helping victims of landmines and in particular amputees?

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

The Commission is heavily involved in both political and practical action to help overcome the landmine tragedy in all the most afflicted areas of the world and has taken significant initiatives during the last five years to alleviate the disastrous impact of landmines on the civil population of Southeast Asia. The largest part of this support was provided to numerous de-mining activities and rehabilitation centres, particularly in Cambodia.

In Cambodia the Commission has been financing an orthopaedic equipment programme for several years. This programme was set up in the province of Kompong Thom destined for patients in this province and also in the neighbouring province of Preah Vihear strongly affected by Khmer Rouge warfare. A second centre is situated in Takeo and the main activity of this workshop is the production of wheel chairs.

The Commission was only recently made aware of the existence of the Tam Diep rehabilitation centre in Hinh Binh province. However, no documented information was forwarded to the Commission.

Financial support for such activities could be made available either through a non-governmental organisation (NGO) special budget line for Vietnam (B7-6004) or the regular NGO co-financing budget line (B7-6000) or the European Community humanitarian office.

The Commission is willing to examine, if requested, a proposal of the charity cited by the Honourable Member for a second centre in Quang Tri.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/96 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Implementation report on framework waste directive (75/442/EEC)

In its reply to my Written Question E-2414/95 ((OJ C 9, 15.1.1996, p.40. )) the Commission stated that it 'intends to publish a report' on the implementation of Directive 75/442/EEC ((OJ C 9, 25.7.1975, p.39. )) 'by the end of 1995'. Has the report been published yet, and, if not, when will it appear? If it has been published, why have copies not been sent to members and substitutes of the Parliament's Environment Committee?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)

The report mentioned in the answer given by the Commission to written question E-2414/95 ((OJ C 9, 15.1.1996. )) has still not been published.

Given the translation deadlines it is currently planned that the Commission will adopt this in the autumn of 1996 (reports on four directives are planned, making up a total of more than 100 pages).

It will be immediately sent to Parliament and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1735/96 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Suspension of the Lomé Agreement

In reply to my question No. 670/96 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p. 60. )), the Commission mentions that financial and technical cooperation has been suspended, on human rights grounds, for Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Rwanda, Togo, Uganda, Gambia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan and Zaire.

1. Is this the full list? If not, which other countries have been involved?

2. When has each of these decisions to suspend development cooperation been taken by the Commission, and when has the Commission decided to lift the suspension?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (26 July 1996)

The countries with which the Community has suspended fully or partially financial and technical cooperation for reasons including civil war and the violation of human rights are:

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0630/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Emergency health treatment

Is the Commission aware that non-EU nationals living in Britain, who are paying their full taxes and national insurance, are not entitled to the E111 form giving them cost-free emergency health treatment when they travel abroad?

Does the Commission feel that this is justifiable when these citizens are paying the same towards the EEA as any other British citizens?

Will the Commission investigate this anomaly and press the UK Government to rectify it?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)

The E111 form acts as a guarantee that the holder is insured for health care in the issuing Member State in order to enable the holder to receive emergency health care while on a short stay in another Member State. This scheme comes within the scope of Community Regulations nos (EEC) 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 - consolidated version OJ C 325, 10.12.1992. )) and (EEC) 574/72 ((OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 - consolidated version OJ C 325, 10.12.1992. )) on the coordination of the social security schemes of the countries of the European economic area (EEA).

The coordinating regulations, however, apply only to nationals of one of the countries of the EEA and to stateless people and refugees. For this reason those who do not have the nationality of one of the EEA countries ('third country nationals') cannot use the E111 system, which is governed by Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) no 1408/71, even when they are legally insured and pay taxes in one of the Member States. The United Kingdom, therefore, is acting in complete accordance with the current Community rules.

The Commission has been aware for some time of the problems created by the present situation, and for this reason a proposal was made on 26 June 1995 ((COM(95) 284 final - OJ C 242, 19.9.1995. )) to extend the scope of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) no 1408/71 to nationals of third countries so that they could make use of the E111 sytem.

Unfortunately, this proposed amendment was not approved by the Council due to the fact that all amendments to the social security regulations must be approved unanimously. However, as announced in the medium term social action programme ((COM(95) 134 final. )), 1995-1997, the Commission intends to make another proposal in the second half of 1996 to extend to nationals of third countries the provisions on emergency health care as well as other limited benefits.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0845/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Approval of footballs by FIFA

The International Football Federation (FIFA) apparently requires that certain types of ball, which FIFA itself approves, be used in football matches and even for training sessions.

According to reports in the media, FIFA receives a certain amount of money from manufacturers in exchange for granting its approval.

Does this action by FIFA not distort the rules which should apply in a single market?

On the basis of what law is FIFA able to extract a levy from the manufacturers of a product in exchange for such a specific kind of approval?

Has the inquiry opened by the Commission to investigate this matter produced any result?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1996)

The Commission has received a complaint against FIFA alleging that it requires football manufacturers to pay a sum of money in order to be able to use the logo certifying that their balls meet the standards for approval laid down by the Federation itself.

The Commission has opened a file on the case. Following an investigation, inspections were carried out and the documents which were copied are currently being examined.

As the case is still under investigation, the Commission cannot yet give its final position on the matter, but it will keep the Honourable Member informed of developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Crisis prevention in Latin America

In its advice to the Council, could the Commission identify the areas of conflict or potential conflict it is concerned about where crisis prevention action is currently desirable in Latin America?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

In the general guidelines for EC-Latin American cooperation for the period 1996-2000 submitted to the Council and approved on 4 December last year, the Commission highlighted, as clearly conducive to stability, the considerable progress achieved in Latin America in both the political and the economic spheres.

Politically, the Commission pointed to the greater mobilization of civil society behind the rule of law and consolidation of democratic institutions. The protracted conflicts in Central America have given way to pacification and the resettlement of displaced persons, returnees and demobilized soldiers. New strength and pragmatism have been infused into integration schemes at subregional level.

On the economic front a period of recession and instability has been succeeded by an upturn, creating the conditions for development and growth. Prospects for an economic recovery in Latin America are therefore good, though the resumption of growth is not yet universal and social problems in particular remain.

Both politically and economically, however, recent events such as the conflict between Peru and Ecuador, the situation in Paraguay and Colombia and the problems of the Mexican economy demonstrate that societies may still be at risk.

In the circumstances, therefore, the Commission is keen to step up cooperation and provide backing for growth and reform as a way of reducing the social tensions which breed instability. Measures have also been adopted in the context of the dialogue with the Rio Group to build mutual confidence and security.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1208/96 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Branch of the College of Europe in Murcia (Spain)

Can the Commission provide information concerning the state of progress on the project of setting up a branch of the College of Europe (based in Bruges) in Murcia (Spain)?

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

This matter is not within the Commission's jurisdiction but that of the College of Europe.

The Administrative Council of the College of Europe noted the request made by the authorities of the city of Murcia. It has been agreed that the request will be examined on the basis of a detailed report, which is still being studied. No decision has yet been taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Financing of SMEs

SMEs receive payment of their invoices with an average delay of 60 days.

What recommendations will the Commission put forward with a view to shortening this delay and improving the financing of SMEs?

Has the Commission considered any initiative aimed at harmonizing the action taken in the event of the late payment of SMEs' invoices (interest, surcharges, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)

The Commission fully recognises that late payment is of major importance to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

The Commission issued a recommendation on payment periods in commercial transactions on 12 May 1995 ((OJ L 127, 10.6.1995. )) and a communication relating to this recommendation ((OJ C 144, 10.6.1995. )). This sets out principles and methods for improving payment periods and requests the Member States to take the most appropriate measures in accordance with their own legal systems. The main elements of the recommendation are to ensure that the penalty system for overdue payments discourages late payments, sufficiently compensates creditors and guarantees access to rapid, inexpensive and efficient redress procedures so as to allow creditors to receive their payments and compensation. To enable the Commission to evaluate what progress has been made, Member States are requested to forward a report to the Commission on action taken in respect of the various elements of this recommendation before 31 December 1997.

In the Commission's proposal for a Council decision on a third multiannual programme for SMEs (1997-2000) ((COM(96) 98 final, 20.3.1996. )), the Commission states that the current economic climate warrants an acceleration of the evaluation process set out in its 1995 recommendation and that it will bring forward further proposals in 1997 and will support actions organised by business organisations which aim at improving financial management capabilities through information, training and other measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1788/96 by Richard Balfe (PSE) to the Commission (20 June 1996)

Subject: 1963 EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Austria

Last May Austria's highest court in administrative matters, the 'VwGH', made public two rulings which it had handed down earlier, in January and February 1996 respectively, which support the view that provisions decided by the Association Council set up under the 1963 EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, in particular Decision No 1/80 and Decision No 3/80, have a direct effect in Austria since the day of its accession to the European Union (see Migration News Sheet, June 1996). The Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs apparently holds this view as well, but not the Austrian Ministry of the Interior. Referring to the opinion of the service on constitutional matters of the Federal Chancellery, the latter argues that the aforementioned Decisions will come into force in Austria only after Vienna has signed and ratified the protocol to be appended to the Association Agreement between the Community and Turkey to take account of the accession of Austria.

1. What is the Commission's view on this matter as to whether or not ratification is necessary before these Decisions can have direct legal effect in a Member State?

2. Does it hold the view that these Decisions are part of the 'acquis communautaire' and therefore apply to EVERY Member State, new and old, regardless of whether it has ratified the said protocol?

3. If such an issue can be decided in a definitive and binding way only by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), is the Commission, acting on its own initiative, competent to request the ECJ to give its preliminary ruling on it? If yes, does the Commission intend to do so, and if not, why?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)

1. The Commission can confirm that for the reasons set out in its answer to the Honourable Member's earlier written questions E-3273/95 and E-3274/95, ((OJ C 91, 27.3.1996. )) to which he may refer, ratification of the protocol to be annexed to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement to take account of Austria's accession is not necessary before these Association Council Decisions can have direct legal effect in a Member State.

2. Its view is that for the reasons and on the terms set out in its earlier answers, Association Council decisions apply to every Member State, new and old, regardless of whether it has ratified that protocol.

3. The Court of Justice is responsible under Article 164 of the EC Treaty for ensuring that in its interpretation and application the law is observed.

Pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty, only courts or tribunals of a Member State may refer questions of interpretation of Community law to the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1778/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Baby milk

At the end of May 1996, the British press reported that the European Commission had cleared nine brands of British-made baby milk of having an unacceptably high level of phthalates and indicated that they did not constitute a danger to adult or baby health. Such clearance was reported as having been achieved within a forty-eight hour period.

Would the Commission please state:-

1. The brand names of those products which are alleged to have been cleared.

2. The basis upon which such 'clearance' was made.

3. The names and addresses of the Commission laboratories or authorized Commission laboratories in which any scientific tests were conducted.

4. The scientific basis upon which such 'clearance' was made.

5. Confirmation that scientific tests upon the products concerned were actually carried out.

6. The legal basis on which the Commission was asked to act in this matter.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1593/96 and E-1778/96 given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

Following reports in the British media, on 28 May 1996 the Commission, of its own initiative, requested the United Kingdom contact point in the Community rapid alert system to provide information about the levels of phthalates found in infant formulae and the methods of analysis used. The United Kingdom contact point responded to that request on 29 May 1996. All the information provided to the Commission has been made available to the public by the United Kingdom authorities. The information concerns a number of baby foods on the British market, some of which are produced in the other Member States.

The other Member States were also asked to provide any available information about levels of phthalates in infant formulae and baby foods.

The information provided by the United Kingdom, and information provided by certain other Member States, was evaluated by the scientific committee for food at its meeting of 5-6 June 1996. The committee concluded that the levels of phthalates found were not a cause of public health concern. The Commission will transmit the opinion of the committee directly to the Honourable Members and to the Parliament's Secretariat.

The opinion of the scientific committee for food was based on the information provided by Member States on the levels of phthalates found in infant formulae and baby foods. The Commission did not undertake any additional scientific tests or studies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1474/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Development programmes in Bolivia

In the light of reports that development programmes aimed at the eradication of coca plantations in Bolivia have been hampered by lack of participation by peasant farmers, over-bureaucratized with a disproportionate amount of funding being spent on administration and a lack of attention being paid to the principle of developing a sound market policy based on regional self-sufficiency, what measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that projects financed by the EU but administered by the Bolivian Government will not repeat mistakes made in the past?

How does it respond to charges made in the Bolivian press that plans released recently by the Bolivian Government are characterized by the same approach that had been used earlier.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1474/96 and E-1475/96 given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (18. July 1996)

Regarding measures taken to date in Bolivia, the Commission has financed a small number of alternative development measures for the rehabilitation of drug addicts. Essentially these are schemes financed by various Bolivian or European NGOs.

As to future action, Bolivia has requested the Community's support for the funding of a major alternative development programme to eradicate coca plantations in the Chapere region. This request is currently being considered by the Community authorities. It is clear, however, that should the Commission agree to act upon this request, the basic criteria used for all development aid programmes would be rigorously applied. This means ensuring that measures to be financed have a sound technical basis (especially prior market surveys), use participatory methodology, and avoid excessive bureaucracy.