ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0271/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (15 February 1996)

Subject: Incorporation of the Dodecanese Chamber of Commerce in the Euro-Info-Centre network

The Dodecanese Chamber of Commerce, which is particularly active among the islands of the Dodecanese, despite the difficulties deriving from the insular and remote nature of the region, the lack of adequate infrastructure and the difficulties of access to information, has been applying since 1989 to join the Euro-Info-Centre network.

The response has been that the Greek Organization for Small Manufacturing and Craft Businesses (EOMEX) in Mytilini has been incorporated into the network from that region and that this rules out a second organization joining from the same area. However, it has come to light that the two Euro-Info-Centres in Greece (at Mytilini and Alexandropolis) have recently closed down.

In view of this, will the Commission reconsider and accept the application from the Dodecanese Chamber of Commerce to join the Euro-Info-Centre network which would provide assistance and support for firms in the Dodecanese which, despite its insular nature, has the highest level of business activity (20 000 firms, mainly SMEs) in regional Greece?

Answer by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (8 March 1996)

The network of Euro Info Centres (EICs) is a central element in of the Council Decision of 14 June 1993 on a multiannual programme of Community measures to intensify the priority areas and to ensure the continuity and consolidation of policy for enterprises, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, in the Community ((OJ L 161, 2.7.1993. )), which covers the period up to 31 December 1996.

A third multiannual programme covering the period 1997-2000 is in preparation. In the new proposal for a Decision to be forwarded to the Council, Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, the Commission will probably advocate stepping up the role of the EIC network. It could also propose a procedure for revamping the composition of the network.

Applications by several Member States, including Greece, will need to be examined with the above considerations in mind. The application by the Dodecanese Chamber of Commerce could therefore be considered in this context in the light of the geographical peculiarities of the region and the current information requirements of enterprises met by the network.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1238/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: Infestation of the cluster pines of Tigullio

During the eighties the cluster pines of Tigullio were infested by Matsucoccus Feytaudi duc. Now the infestation is spreading alarmingly to the whole of Liguria and, in particular, to the Cinque Terre area.

There is talk of more than two hundred thousand high trunk plants rotting during the next few years.

Is the Commission aware of the problem and does it not consider it should intervene directly or at least press for programmed and complete disinfestation to safeguard the environmental heritage in view of possibility of disastrous fires?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-632/96 by Mr Parodi ((OJ C 217 of 26.7.1996, p. 82. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0280/96 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Council (27 February 1996)

Subject: Whereabouts of Resit Yildiz, a Turkish citizen, from Cilesizküyü (Mezre/Miheke), Nusaybin

Resit Yildiz, a Turkish citizen, from Cilesizküyü (Mezre/Miheke), Nusaybin, was taken from his home on 27 August 1995, since when he has vanished without trace. Mr Yildiz is a Kurd of the Yezidic faith and mayor of the last remaining Yezidic village in the district. There is still no definite information (according to the Federal Republic's Foreign Office) as to whether Mr Yildiz has been detained by Turkish security forces or has fallen victim to the PKK.

1. To what extent does the Council regard this case as impeding its negotiations with Turkey?

2. Will it make this, and other examples of glaring human rights violations in Turkey, the subject of future negotiations? 3. What long-term measures is the Council seeking to prevent future human rights violations of this nature in Turkey?

Reply (13 June 1996)

The Council attaches greatest importance to respect for human rights and democracy in Turkey and does not hesitate to condemn violations of them in contacts with the Turkish authorities. The Council has also made clear, and will continue to do so, that observance of the rule of law and of fundamental freedoms is the basis for the rapprochement of Turkey to the EU.

With a view to adopting long-term measures the Council is continuing to monitor carefully the situation with regard to human rights and democratic development in Turkey. The Council has duly noted that, having given its assent, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the human rights situation in Turkey, which, inter alia, called on the Commission and the Council to monitor permanently human rights and democratic development in Turkey and requested the Commission to present a report on the situation to the European Parliament at least once a year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0842/96 by Brendan Donnelly (PPE) to the Commission (12 April 1996)

Subject: Failure of Greek social security authorities to implement EC Regulation 1408/71

On 12 January 1996 I put down a Written Question (E-3636/95) ((OJ C 326, 6.12.1995, p. 45. )) asking when the Commission would be taking legal action against the Greek Government for non-implementation of EC Regulation 1408/71 (1) ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. )) in the matter of my constituent Mr A. Zafiropoulos. On 1 March 1996 I received an assurance that the Commission intends to bring legal action. Is the Commission now in a position to answer my question of 12 January as to when these proceedings will commence?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (4 June 1996)

The Commission can confirm that it has brought the matter before the Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDN) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Customs duty on pectin

Why, according to the Commission, must pectin be treated differently from gum arabic, carrageenan, guar gum, agar agar, locust bean seed gum, alginate and carboxymethylcellulose? What particular reason is there for raising the customs duty on pectin?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)

The separate tariff classification of these products arises because the Combined Nomenclature is based on the Harmonized System adopted under Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 ((OJ L 198, 20.7.1987 )), which classifies them

individually in headings 1301, 1302, 3912 and 3913. In the old CCT the duties represented the arithmetical average of the rates applicable in the six original Community Member States.

These tariffs are now bound in GATT.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1014/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Obstacles to the importation of ceramic tiles in some Central European countries

Some Central European countries, for instance Hungary, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Slovenia, have introduced or intend to introduce complex, costly and restrictive legislation on mandatory certificates for ceramic tiles imported from European Union countries.

As this conflicts with Community rules and World Trade Organization international agreements, what will the Commission do to ensure that the principle of free trade is adhered to in the case of ceramic tiles?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (14 June 1996)

The Commission is aware of the importance of trade in ceramic tiles between the Community and certain countries of central and eastern Europe.

As soon as the Commission was informed of a potential problem in this area, it requested relevant information from the countries concerned.

The Commission is evaluating the information it has received and, on the basis of this evaluation, will decide whether any action is necessary to ensure that these countries fulfil their obligations under the Europe agreements and free trade agreements they have concluded with the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/96 by Michèle Lindeperg (PSE) to the Council (27 March 1996)

Subject: Definition of 'refugee' under the Geneva Convention - temporary protection

The Council recently adopted a common position on the definition of 'refugee' within the meaning of Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention.

This position contains a restrictive interpretation of persecution by third parties. It does not afford protection to persons persecuted by non-governmental groups in cases where the public authorities are involuntarily inactive.

Does the Council intend to adopt a common means of temporary protection offering such persons a status enabling them both to be protected and to live in decent conditions in the European Union?

Reply (16 July 1996)

1. The joint position ((OJ L 63, 13 March 1996, p.2 )) to which the Honourable Member refers gives expression to the European Union's wish to harmonize the application in the Member States of the Geneva Convention's criteria for determining refugee status. The 'common denominator' adopted does not, however, mean that more favourable legislation that may exist in some Member States may not continue to apply.

The introduction to the joint position states, inter alia, that 'This joint position is adopted within the limits of the constitutional powers of the Governments of the Member States; it shall not bind the legislative authorities or affect decisions of the judicial authorities...'.

2. With particular reference to persecution by third parties (paragraph 5.2 of the joint position), it is not true to say that the joint position 'does not afford protection to persons persecuted by non-governmental groups in cases where the public authorities are involuntarily inactive'.

In fact, the joint position calls in such cases for 'individual examination of each application... in accordance with national judicial practice'. Should that examination establish that the applicant cannot be considered a refugee within the meaning of the Geneva Convention, he may nevertheless 'be eligible in any event for appropriate forms of protection under national law'. On the latter point, paragraph 1 of the joint position ('Recognition as a refugee') has this to say: 'This document... in no way affects the conditions under which a Member State may, according to its domestic law, permit a person to remain in its territory if his safety or physical integrity would be endangered if he were to return to his country because of cirumstances which are not covered by the Geneva Convention but which constitute a reason for not returning him to his country of origin.'.

3. By now, most Member States have developed temporary protection arrangements, which vary widely. Temporary protection is an important concept and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia has shown how useful and wide-ranging it can be. Discussion of the concept at European Union level is part of the Presidency's work programme. However, the debate is only just beginning and it is too soon to say what the outcome will be.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/96 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (31 May 1996)

Subject: Kidney trafficking in India

In the State of Tamil Nadu in southern India paid kidney transplants have given rise to a flourishing international trade and at least five thousand people, women in particular, live with only one kidney.

Although the new law on transplants, adopted in May of last year in response to a wave of public outrage, has drastically curbed kidney trafficking, paid organ transplants have not completely disappeared.

1. What measures will the Commission take to strengthen controls in EU Member countries on the illegal importing of human organs?

2. Does the Commission not consider that a team of medical experts and Community inspectors should be sent to India to verify the real extent of this phenomenon and does it not consider that human rights with regard to personal health are being violated?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)

The Commission entirely agrees on the need to eradicate illicit human organ transplants for payment, and welcomes the efforts made by India to eliminate this practice.

1. The application of penal law in the fight against the illicit traffic of organs is clearly a matter for the Member States. The Commission nevertheless notes the need for a co-ordination of customs services when faced with the difficulty of identifying the origin (paying or non-paying) of imported organs at the frontier.

2. Control within the country of origin is therefore essential to an effective policy. Given that poverty is the main reason for the continuing supply of organs, the Commission has increased its commitment to raising the quality of life in India by financing public health, education and information projects with special emphasis on women. The Commission feels that such positive measures are the best means of tackling the problem, and it is ready to consider supporting further practical measures if India requests help in eliminating or investigating the situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1032/96 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Tenancy and purchase of agricultural land in Denmark

On 15 January 1996 a farmer from Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) bought a 52-hectare farm for DKR 2.85 million, i.e. almost DKR 50 000 per hectare. This farm had already been held for seven years on a tenancy agreement.

Under Danish law neighbouring landholders who farm less than 70ha of their own land, or non-farmers who own less than 30ha, have a priority right of purchase provided they live less than 1km from the land for sale. Those entitled to purchase under this right may do so at the current price for land of DKR 27 000 per hectare.

Are these Danish laws compatible or in conflict with the rules of the internal market?

Will the Commission examine the Danish legislation to ensure that it guarantees freedom of establishment and non-discrimination against EU citizens.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1996)

The right of establishment for farmers is spelt out in Council Directives 67/530/EEC and 67/531/EEC of 25 July 1967. ((OJ 190, 10.8.1967, as amended by the Act of Accession of Denmark (OJ L 73, 27.3.1972). )) The relevant Danish legislation applies irrespective of the nationality of the purchaser of the farm and cannot therefore be challenged. Furthermore, in so far as, in the case at issue, a priority right of purchase for the previous tenant does not exist under the relevant Danish legislation, this does not constitute discriminatory treatment within the meaning of the aforementioned Directives.

Moreover, the higher purchase price paid by the farmer in question was contractually agreed and is thus based exclusively on the principle of freedom of contract.

For these reasons, the Commission considers that the Danish legislation in question does not conflict with Community law in the case at issue.

The Commission does not intend to take any measures against that legislation but will continue to monitor its application closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1091/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Compensation for international road hauliers

It has been brought to my attention by various publications in the Greek press and through my contacts with the Greek Federation of International Road Hauliers that compensation has been paid for financial loss incurred Greek transport companies owing to the war in former Yugoslavia.

Will the Commission say:

1. Which European Union regulation provides for aid for Greek transport companies to compensate for financial loss incurred due to the war in former Yugoslavia?

2. Who received the compensation, which criteria were used and what is the overall amount of the compensation?

3. Is it intended to renew the regulation or to extend it, given that the adverse effects of the war in former Yugoslavia are still very much in evidence?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)

Since war broke out in Yugoslavia in 1991 until the end of 1995, the Commission has granted a flat-rate allowance to consignors lodging applications under Regulation (EC) No 811/95 ((OJ L 82, 12.4.1995. )) for the transport of Greek fruit and vegetables to the other Community Member States apart from Italy, Spain and Portugal.

For consignments made in 1995, the allowance amounted to ECU 48.30 per tonne net weight.

The Council is currently examining a proposal for a regulation extending this special measure to cover the first six months of 1996. ((COM(96) 142. )) The proposal was made by the Commission on account of the continuing difficulty of transport in the former Yugoslavia despite the cessation of hostilities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/96 by Pieter Dankert (PSE) and Carlos Pimenta (ELDR) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: New Tagus bridge financed from the Cohesion Fund

Pursuant to Article 5(4) of the Commission decision on Cohesion Fund financing for the new Tagus bridge (project 94/10/65/005), the decision does not affect the Commission's powers to initiate infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty.

Why has the Commission not started infringement proceedings for breaches of Directives 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p.1. ))and 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7. )) in view of the activitieduring the breeding season, the illegal dredging activities, the dumping of sediments outside the designated sites and the dumping of sediment within the protected area at high water?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0904/96, E-0905/96, E-0906/96, E-0907/96 and E-0908/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (9 July 1996)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Members and will inform them of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1737/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Trade in olive oil with Tunisia

I would like to restate my Written Question E-0470/96 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p.33 )) following Mr Fischler's reply of 27 March 1996 on behalf of the Commission.

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the EC and Tunisia was signed on 17 July 1995. Articles 37 and 38 of that agreement make provision for measures to end any form of discrimination with regard to marketing and the disruption of trade between the parties.

Five months later, on 25 December 1995, the Tunisian Government issued Decree No 95/2593 introducing a special levy on exports of oil not covered by the preferential arrangements, thereby effectively blocking trade with the EC.

Given that the ONH (Office National de l'Huile) exerts monopolistic control over the tariff quota for olive oil, blocking access thereto contrary to the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3463/87 ((OJ L 329, 20.11.1987, p.3. )), would the Commission not agree that it should:

1. take steps to ensure that Community undertakings are exempt from the effects of Decree No 95/2593;

2. guarantee that, once the above effects no longer apply, the Tunisian authorities will not place bureaucratic obstacles in the path of Community undertakings;

3. reconfirm that Community undertakings have a right of access to the quota on the same terms.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: NGO cooperation in the field of disability

Bearing in mind its answer to Question E-0520/96 ((OJ C 280, 25.9.1996, p.36 )), what assurances can the Commission now make to disability NGOs currently funded under the EU Helios Programme, but whose continued work is under threat without extended funding under successor programmes or actions? Will the Commission immediately consult with NGOs affected on this issue, and precisely indicate a timetable within which decisions about NGO cooperation funding will be taken for 1997? Will the Commission ensure that special arrangements safeguard against the closure of such NGOs and redundancy of their staff?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission 1C>(26 June 1996)

The Commission recognises the importance of cooperation from disability non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that it has supported throughout the Helios II programme; it also appreciates the quality and value that this has brought to European policy discussions for the disabled.

The Commission is currently examining new forms of cooperation to promote equal opportunities for the disabled with a view to taking significant action to assist disabled people. Planned measures will include support for cooperation from the disability NGOs. Moreover, the Commission intends to keep the current European Disability Forum regularly informed and to involve it in its exploratory work as soon as this has been formalised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1352/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various bodies

Can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs and bodies receiving Community subsidies under budget heading B7-5010 (Community contribution towards schemes concerning developing countries carried out by non-governmental organizations)? Can it state the exact total of these subsidies at the close of the last financial year?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (28 June 1996)

The Commission publishes voluminous annual reports on operations cofinanced with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) under budget heading B7-6000 (formerly B7-5010), which it sends to Parliament and the Council. The annexes to the report contain a full list of projects cofinanced in the course of the financial year, stating the recipient NGO, the project title, the total cost and the Community contribution.

A copy of the report for 1994 is being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat direct.

The 1995 report is due to appear towards the end of this year.