ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1612/97 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (7 May 1997)

Subject: Olive oil and cooperation agreements with Tunisia and Morocco

Can the Commission give details of any commitments to import olive oil included in the cooperation agreements with Tunisia and Morocco?

What is likely to be the economic impact on the EU's olive oil producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

Under the terms of the cooperation agreement signed in Tunis on 25 April 1976 and subsequent protocols, imports of olive oil originating in that country benefit from a reduced duty (ECU 7.80 per 100 kilograms) in the framework of a tariff quota of 46 000 tonnes. This concession was renewed under the association agreement signed in Brussels on 17 July 1995, which is now in the process of ratification. In addition, and apart from this quota, Community legislation provides for tariff reductions for imports of olive oil originating in Morocco and Tunisia.

However, except for operations under the inward processing arrangements, imports from third countries are confined to those originating in Tunisia and carried out within the tariff quota (46 000 tonnes) with reduced customs duties. Imports originating in other third countries are insignificant.

The economic impact of this oil quota on Community producers is very difficult to evaluate, because it depends on various market parameters including production in the current marketing year, the quantity carried over, market prices, the level of intervention stocks, export forecasts, the quality of both Community and Tunisian oil and the level of consumption.

Generally speaking, the economic impact will be of the same order of magnitude as the difference between the market price of Community oil before and after import of the Tunisian quota.

In all cases, this evaluation has to be performed in the light of the oil available in the marketing year under consideration. In a year when there is no surplus the economic impact will be almost non-existent; otherwise (surplus harvest), the economic effects for the sector will be more obvious.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1360/97 by Maren Günther (PPE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Shortcomings in the implementation of the Erasmus programme

I have received personal reports from students on the Erasmus programme that its implementation in the host countries is often unsatisfactory. There is a lack of coordination (in some cases, it is alleged, there is no local Erasmus coordinator), and many students break off their Erasmus studies owing to difficulties such as lack of flexibility in the choice of subject options and problems with recognition by their universities at home.

Does the Commission intend to introduce rules to eliminate these and other shortcomings, and does the Commission monitor the way in which the programmes are implemented?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1997)

The Commission feels that certain difficulties encountered by Erasmus students in their host countries are due to the lack of appropriate information for students and teachers on differences in the organisation of higher-education courses (content, examinations, etc.) in the various Member States.

The new phase of Erasmus as part of the Socrates programme and in particular the covering of the cost of mobility implementation by the central administrations of universities from September 1997 ('institutional contracts'), will allow the Commission to intervene in the event of any failure to respect agreements signed between universities receiving Community funding for student mobility.

Furthermore, the removal of the various obstacles to student mobility is the subject of a debate launched at European level by the Commission's Green Paper ((Education - Training - Research: the obstacles to transnational mobility - Green Paper COM(96) 462 final. )). The Commission is planning a specific follow-up to this debate in the form of initiatives, within the limits of Community competence.

However, it is necessary to emphasise the fact that, according to the information at the Commission's disposal, the number of students who have had to break off their studies owing to inadequate guidance or the inflexibility of courses is negligible compared with the total of around 400 000 Erasmus students who have so far benefited from organised mobility.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1626/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Increase in funds for new fisheries agreements

The EU must take action to compensate for the sacrifices which the Community fishing fleet is obliged to make if the reductions required under the Fourth Fisheries Guidance Programme are to be achieved.

On 14 April 1997 did the Commission not ask the Council of Fisheries Ministers for an ECU 30 million increase in the budget to enable new fisheries agreements to be negotiated with third countries?

What was the Council's decision?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

The Commission did not make any such request at the Fisheries Council in April 1997.

In addition to the initial appropriation of ECU 246 million, this year's budget provides for a reserve of ECU 30 million (budget heading B0- 40) for both fishing agreements being renewed or renegotiated with third parties in 1997 and possible new agreements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/97 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: MEDA democracy programme

Can the Commission outline its selection criteria for deciding which projects to support under the MEDA democracy programme?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1997)

Drawing on earlier experience with democracy programmes, the Commission has produced and circulated to interested parties a brochure setting out guidelines for implementation of the MEDA programme and explaining the criteria that projects should meet to qualify for support. The selection criteria are broadly as follows.

- Recipients:

The programme provides backing for human rights and democracy in those countries which, with the European Union, have signed the Barcelona Declaration: Algeria, Morocco, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority. Both local and regional projects are eligible for support.

- Possible areas of operation:

The programme addresses political rights; this covers the democratic process (election arrangements, information centres, publicity campaigns, training, opinion polling) and the rule of law (institutional reform, training of officials, prison reform, human rights organizations, accountability in public administration).

It also covers certain civil rights, including freedom of speech (independent media, codes of ethics, facilities for journalists), freedom of assembly (group contacts between political parties, support for civil society in general), freedom of religious observance and freedom of movement.

Under the heading of socio-economic rights, support is available for trade unions and training activities.

Target groups eligible for protection include women (with reference in particular to women's integration into political and economic life and awareness programmes), children, minorities, refugees and displaced persons, torture victims and prisoners.

- Organizers:

Projects can be submitted by private-sector organizations or associations and quasi-public or public bodies, individually or in partnership. However, individual political parties are not eligible, nor are bodies which advocate violence or fail to support universally-recognized human rights.

- Special conditions:

The Commission's contribution may not exceed 80% of the estimated project budget and the other contributors must be named. Only in exceptional cases may a 100% grant be given. Administrative costs may not account for more than 6% of the budget.

Projects already under way or complete do not qualify for grants, and regional projects are not eligible if they would already qualify for support under Mediterranean decentralized cooperation programmes - no project may rely on two different sources of support from the Community budget.

- Submission and implementation of projects:

Those seeking Community funding are required to submit an application form together with a project proposal setting out the antecedents, general and specific objectives, rationale, methodology and planned measures and specifying the duration and detailed project budget in ECU.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1764/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Exemptions with regard to the rice market

1. Does the Commission not agree that the exemption measure is unreasonable in the light of the objectives of the OCT decision and Article 3(r) of the Treaty establishing the European Community concerning the economies of the OCT?

2. Has the Commission examined in advance the effect of an exemption measure on the economies of the OCT? What form did this evaluation take and what was the result? Has the Commission taken it into account in its subsequent measure?

3. During the period in which the exemption was in force (January to April 1997) was the Commission able to form an objective opinion of its impact on the Community rice market? In what way, and what were the results?

4. What is the basis for the Commission's expectation that a new measure will resolve the problems on the Community rice market? Will a new measure also restrict rice varieties from the OCT which are not produced there, as is the case with the present measure?

5. Does the Commission really believe that only by adopting exemption measures can the crisis on the Community rice market be resolved and what is the basis for this belief? If that is not the Commission's belief, what other action will it take?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1997)

1. The prolongation of safeguard measures against rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) enacted by Regulation (EC) No 764/97 ((OJ L 112, 29.4.1997. )) is fully consonant with the objectives of the Community's activities. The purpose of the OCTs' association with the Community (point (r) of Article 3 of the EC Treaty) cannot be pursued to the detriment of the common agricultural policy, also listed in Article 3 (point (e)). The serious disturbance of the rice market by imports originating in the OCTs warrants the provisions of the Regulation

2. Before adopting the safeguard measures the Commission carefully assessed their impact on the economies of the OCTs. It concluded that opening the two tariff quotas would allow continuity of production in the OCTs within limits compatible with the balance on the Community market.

3. The Commission found some improvement in market prices foriIndica rice during the first period of the safeguard measures (1 January -30 April 1997) as growers began to sell their rice on the Community market again. The serious disturbance and risk of substantial deterioration of the sector were not however eliminated.

4. Restriction of the quantities of rice originating in the OCTs imported at zero duty should allow rice grown in the Community to find an outlet more easily.

5 Safeguard measures of the type enacted are by their nature temporary. A longer term solution must be found as part of the mid-term review of the Decision on association of the OCTs. A Presidency compromise based on the Commission's proposal, before the Council since February 1996, has received the consent of only fourteen countries, which prevents its unanimous adoption.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2017/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (11 June 1997)

Subject: The situation in the European rice sector

In its reply to this Member's Written Question (E-0842/97) ((OJ C 367, 4.12.1997, p. 45. )) on the difficult situation in the European rice sector, the Commission said that it was 'aware of the demands' and had adopted measures in the sector to avoid disturbances.

What were these measures? What developments have there been in the sector since then?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

As indicated in the reply to the Honourable Member's Question E-842/97, the Commission, in order to avoid serious disturbances in the rice sector, has taken certain measures concerning the internal market and also others relating to imports.

With a view to reducing the quantities of rice of the indica type which might be offered to intervention, in particular in Spain and Greece, two new invitations to tender were opened. One of them concerns the export of parboiled rice of the indica type and the other husked indica rice for Réunion. By 3 June 1997, 7 700 tonnes of parboiled rice and 9 600 tonnes of husked rice for Réunion had benefited from these measures.

With regard to imports, measures were taken on rice imports originating in the overseas countries and territories, on which the import duty is zero. The safeguard clause introduced in January for four months was confirmed until 30 September 1997. This measure was recently extended by the Council until 30 November 1997, keeping the quantity to be imported at 69 610 tonnes of husked rice equivalent.

These measures caused an increase in the demand for Community rice and therefore slowed down sales to intervention, in particular in Spain where, at 30 May 1997, the quantities in intervention reached approximately 40 000 tonnes, most of it indica rice.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0906/97 by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Permitted maximum quantity of residues in certain fish species: situation in the various Member States

In the light of the somewhat vague answer to my Written Question P-0385/97 ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 170. )), will the Commission now say which Member States have imposed maximum limits on the levels of the organochlorine antiparasitic agent known as DDT present in certain fish species? What is the maximum permitted concentration of DDT in each Member State?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

In reply to the question posed by the Honourable Member concerning the fixing of statutory maximum pesticide residue levels (MRLs) for Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in certain types of fish, the Commission can report that for the majority of Member States, no national MRLs are fixed for DDT.

For the minority of Member States which do fix MRLs for DDT in fish, the term 'fish' applies to fresh and salt water species.

A detailed overview (Member State by Member State) is sent to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2057/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (16 June 1997)

Subject: Aid for the textiles, clothing and leather sectors

The French authorities are reported to have submitted a scheme for providing aid for their textiles and leather products sectors by means of a plan to subsidize labour.

This scheme has been rejected as 'sectoral' by Commissioner Van Miert.

The French authorities have promised to change it and re-submit it as a 'horizontal scheme'.

Will the Commission say how this whole affair has developed so far, whether any aid has been given to the textiles, clothing and leather sectors in any EU country and whether it is planned to give such aid to any non-EU country in future?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1997)

On 9 April 1997 the Commission adopted a final negative decision on the experimental measures for reducing social security contributions in the textile, clothing, leather and footwear sectors in France.

It took the view that, normally, the burden on firms resulting from agreements concluded between the two sides of industry in a particular sector, whether with a view to reorganising working time or with other objectives in mind, and leading to wage increases or paid holidays not required under the rules generally applicable should be borne by those firms. In its opinion, therefore, intervention by the authorities in the case at issue intrinsically ranks in its entirety as state aid.

Given the sectoral nature of the aid and the fact that it has been granted to sensitive sectors in crisis, the Commission cannot regard the aid as being compatible with the common market under the guidelines on aid to employment ((OJ C 334, 12.12.1995. )).

Following its decision, the French authorities announced their intention of notifying to the Commission a new plan for reducing social security contributions. The Commission is waiting to hear from the new French Government what its position on the matter is.

Apart from the experimental measures to reduce social security contributions which were introduced by the Italian authorities to promote production and employment in the footwear industry and which were the subject of a negative final decision by it ((OJ L 231, 12.9.1996. )), the Commission is unaware of any measures of this kind that may have been introduced in Member States in the sectors referred to by the Honourable Member. Similarly, its attention has not been drawn to similar measures from which the sectors in question might have benefited in third countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0595/97 by Antoine-François Bernardini (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Refining and distribution of petroleum products in France

Staff of the Esso refinery in Fos-Sur-Mer have drawn my attention to the question of refining and distribution of petroleum products in France. They query the legality of a number of measures taken by the authorities in France which will jeopardize their jobs.

These measures include:

- the practice of a 'loss-lender price' for major distributors which distorts competition;

- a tax system which unduly favours diesel;

- heavy taxes on French oil exploration, resulting in a fall in production.

Can the Commission give a ruling on the legality of these measures in the light of Community law? If so, what action could be taken against the French authorities?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 June 1997)

Further to its answer of 2 April 1997 ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997, p. 216. )), the Commission has tried to obtain additional information from the complainants so as to be able to reply to the question on the refining and distribution of petroleum products in France. Since this information has not reached it, the Commission is not able to adopt a position. It will be able to examine the matter if the complainants would be kind enough to send it precise details of the facts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1913/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: XXVth report on competition policy

With reference to the 'XXVth report on competition policy (1995)'(COM(96) 0126 final) and the 'draft Commission notice on cooperation between national competition authorities and the Commission in handling cases falling within the scope of Articles 85 or 86 of the EC Treaty' ((OJ C 262, 10.9.1996, p. 5. )),

and on the subject of the independent European Agency, will the Commission specify whether the latter's powers will relate solely to 'concentrations' or also to Articles 85 and 86, or even to Articles 90 ff.?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

The Commission has always spoken out against setting up an independent European competition agency.

Furthermore, the Treaty of Amsterdam contains no reference to the creation of such a body.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1639/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Continuous enrichment monitoring

One way in which fissile materials can be monitored is continuous enrichment monitoring.

1. How does the Commission assess the monitoring options offered by this method?

2. In which European plants is this method used?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1997)

1. One of the objectives of safeguarding enrichment plants is to detect any undeclared high enrichment of uranium. A measure to achieve this goal, the 'continuous enrichment monitor' (CEMO), was developed by the United Kingdom under the United Kingdom-International atomic energy agency (IAEA) support programme and installed in the centrifuge enrichment plant at Capenhurst, United Kingdom.

The views of Euratom on the technical methodology have been given in reply to the oral question H-370/97 of Mr Smith during the plenary session of the Parliament, on 13 May 1997. Certain problems have been identified which are still under evaluation. Therefore, Euratom prefers to continue its testing in Capenhurst in order to gain more experience. In parallel, Euratom is investigating (together with the IAEA) other new approaches (high performance trace analyses or environmental sampling) to arrive at an optimal solution.

2. For the reasons stated above, at present CEMO is tested only in one installation, at Capenhurst.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1692/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: Counting days at sea as actual fishing days

As current Community law is applied, days at sea on the way to the various fishing grounds are counted as fishing days, which results in a substantial loss of actual fishing opportunities. For example, Spanish boats fishing in Zone VII of the ICES have to make an average journey of three days there and back, which means three licence days are lost on each trip.

What urgent steps does the Commission propose to take to solve this unfair and serious problem?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1997)

Fishing effort is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 ((OJ L 71, 31.3.1995 )). The objective is to maintain the balance of resources within each fishing zone by preventing overall fishing efforts from increasing or securing any reduction dictated by the resource trend.

Fishing effort is defined as the product of a vessel's capacity and its activity and calculated by multiplying its power in kilowatts by the number of days spent in the zone.

The time taken to reach the zone covered by a fishing effort restriction thus has no bearing on calculation of effort. Only the total number of days spent in the zone, irrespective of the actual duration of fishing activity, counts.

The effort allowed for each fishery was assessed by Member States themselves and notified to the Commission. These assessments were published in Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 ((OJ L 199, 24.8.1995 )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2032/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Attacks on Spanish products in France

In view of the attacks by French farmers on Spanish fruit and vegetable products in May 1997, has the Commission decided to make representations to the French Government to complain, protest, penalize or demand an explanation concerning the latter's repeated failure to take action over incidents preventing the free movement of EU persons and goods on its territory?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question P-1992/97 by Mr García-Margallo y Marfil ((See page 137. )).