ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council (1 April 1996)

Subject: Human rights

At this year's annual meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights, the European Union will be tabling motions for resolutions concerning the human rights situation in various countries, such as Iran, Burma, Nigeria, Zaire and China.

Turkey is the third country having the closest ties with the European Union, thanks to customs union.

The human rights situation in this country is very serious and may readily be compared with that in other countries in respect of which European Union is tabling motions for resolutions as indicated above, indeed it may even be worse.

Given that the human rights situation in Turkey in the first months of 1996 is worse than it was in 1995, and that the so-called constitutional amendments in that country do not constitute an adequate response to the real situation obtaining there:

Will the Council say:

1. On the basis of what criteria has the Council decided not to submit a motion for a resolution on the human rights situation in Turkey at this year's meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights?

2. Why has the Council never tabled a motion for a resolution in respect of that country?

3. Does it intend to table such a motion next year, if the human rights situation in Turkey fails to improve?

Reply (19 November 1996)

The Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect of human rights in all countries and expresses its concern when violations of those rights occur.

The Council would like to draw the Honourable Member of Parliament's attention to the EU Presidency's statement at the 52nd Commission on Human Rights under item 10 of the Agenda. This statement conveyed to the Turkish Government the depth of the EU member's continuing concern about a number of human rights issues in Turkey and incorporated several steps which the Council hopes the Turkish Government will take to improve the human rights situation.

The Council does not hesitate to express its condemnation of violations of human rights in its contacts with the Turkish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (6 September 1996)

Subject: Bones for meat

In response to Question E-0751/91, ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 105. )) the Commission advised that 'further discussion with the experts of Member States on food labelling will be held shortly'.

Have such talks taken place and, if so, will the Commission respond in detail on any plans to protect the consumer by way of appropriate labelling?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)

Consultations with Member States within the framework of the standing committee for foodstuffs on 26 June 1996 have led to the conclusion that, in accordance with Article 6 paragraph 5 point b) of Directive 79/112/EEC ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979 amended by Directive 93/12/EC OJ L 291, 25.11.1993. )) relating to labelling of foodstuffs, mechanically recovered meat (MRM) has to be declared as such in the list of ingredients.

This conclusion appears in the form of a statement in annex of the minutes of the meeting and will be transmitted for information to the socio-economic interests concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2428/96 by Christian Jacob (UPE) to the Commission (11 September 1996)

Subject: Bacteria Xanthomonas Campestris p.v. Phaseoli

In 1992 the Commission proposed that several harmful organisms, including Xanthomonas Campestris p.v. Phaseoli, should be transferred from Directive 77/93/EEC ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 20. )) and included under the directives on the marketing of seeds. Following this proposal, the Committee on Plant Health agreed that the organism should be included in Directive 70/458/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.10.1970, p. 7. )).

Does the Commission intend to transfer Xanthomas from Directive 77/93 to Directive 70/458 and, if so, what measures has it taken, or will it take, to do so?

What measures will the Commission take to carry out a standard and harmonized laboratory test on Xanthomonas on bean seeds?

Does the Commission agree that the current quarantining of Xanthomonas in the European Community imposes a needless economic burden on bean seed producers operating in climactic zones where the disease has not been detected or has caused only very limited damage?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1996)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that when revising the Community phytosanitary arrangements, particularly the technical annexes, in connection with the setting up of the internal market, it did indeed examine where it was necessary to keep certain harmful organisms such as the xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli in Council Directive 77/93/EEC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (last amended by Commission Directive 96/14/EC ((OJ L 68 of 19.3.1996. ))). In this context, it considered 'transferring' these organisms from the phytosanitary directive to the directives on the marketing of seeds, which would mean fixing a certain tolerance and monitoring compliance at the production stage.

To this end, the Commission organized a number of meetings with experts from Member States at which the participants discussed parameters for inclusion in Commission Directive 70/458/EEC regarding the marketing of vegetable seeds, particularly the tolerance level and method of analysis. However, it has not yet been possible to define a standard, harmonized method for detection of xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli in bean seeds. Furthermore, the problem of phytosanitary risks which vary depending on the soil and climate in different regions of the Community is currently unresolved. Discussions on all of these matters are continuing.

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member's views about the economic consequences of maintaining these bacteria in quarantine, as this harmful organism, albeit of restricted distribution in the Community, can cause significant damage to bean producers in regions where the conditions of high humidity and temperature encourage the spread of bacteria; a scheme providing for the organism's control is therefore of utmost importance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1623/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Selection of experts - committee to evaluate Article 10 applications

Can the Commission identify who has been selected to undertake the evaluation of applications for Article 10 projects and briefly summarize the main qualifications and experience of each person in relation to the task.

How far has each expert direct personal experience of the workings of regional and local government?

What policy guidelines have been given to the committee to guide its work and are these available to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

As stipulated in its guidelines for the implementation of Article 10 of amended Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) the Commission has made every endeavour to select a group of experts which meet the established criteria on independence and professionalism to help it assess the response to the call for proposals. With regard to the first four calls for proposals for the innovative schemes subprogramme, the 90 or so people selected are engaged in work of a practical or academic nature in the regional development field. Furthermore, each committee of experts has specialist knowledge in the area concerned (innovation, information society, new employment opportunities and cultural heritage).

As far as supervision of the work of these committees is concerned, the Commission has made arrangements for each proposal to be assessed by at least two experts, with the final decision resting in its own hands. It has also published guidelines for assessing the proposals in each of the areas concerned, clarifying the implementation of the selection criteria laid down in the calls for proposals and in the information files. Given the high ratio of proposals received (900 in the area of innovative action alone) to funding available (sufficient for some 130 projects), these criteria have been strictly applied. At any rate, the new approach to Article 10 now includes specific requirements regarding the demonstrative character and replicability of the projects. The quality of the partnership, the innovative character of the projects and the opportunity to combine them with traditional European Regional Development Fund activities have been paid particular attention in this context.

Similar guidelines will apply to the selection of experts for the other areas covered by Article 10.

The list of experts and the guidelines for the selection of projects were drafted in accordance with internal Commission procedures. They may not, therefore, be distributed externally lest they call into question the objectivity and independence of the selection process, by which Parliament sets particular store.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2257/96 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Problems concerning subsidies for olive oil producers

Is the Commission aware of the serious problems Greek olive oil producers will face if producer subsidies are fixed by tree (and not by kilo of product - the practice hitherto) and if the related changes set out in its new proposals aimed at restructuring the olive oil market are adopted?

Is it aware also that the yield in olives and oil depends on many factors apart from the country of production (for example, climate, soil, variety, care taken by the producer, etc.)? Are these proposals based on a scientific study or merely on auditing data? How does it view the fact that Greece has no olive oil register and what does it intend to do to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)

The Commission has not yet adopted a position and therefore has not yet adopted a proposal on the forthcoming reform of the common organization of the market in olive oil.

Various drafts will be considered. The Commission is also aware of the fact that olive and olive oil yields depend on various parameters, as the Honourable Member points out. However, its choice in presenting a proposal to the Council will be determined in the light of all the factors and all aspects of the question in the interests of Community growers and other socio-professional groups.

Given recent experience with the common organization of the market, especially in each of the olive-growing Member States (the biggest consumers), this proposal will seek to simplify the scheme and take greater account than before of the social and environmental dimensions of olive growing.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1942/96 by Irene Crepaz (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: 'Cattle AIDS'

According to a news programme on the ARD television channel, there are in the United Kingdom cases of cattle infected with AIDS whose milk is poured away in the fields because the cooperatives will not take it.

1. Are there any research findings on the infectiousness of the virus as a result of the consumption of the milk or meat of cows infected with AIDS?

2. What does the Commission intend to do in this matter? (This is alleged to be a greater threat than BSE.)

3. What is being done to protect consumers - what information is being disseminated in this area?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

The Honourable Member is probably referring to the occurrence of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus (BIV) on a farm in the United Kingdom.

BIV is a disease caused by a virus belonging to the group retroviruses, which includes the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Retroviruses are characterised by being species-specific, i.e. a virus from one species does not affect other species under natural conditions. Other members of this group include a feline and a sheep virus.

There is evidence for a worldwide distribution of BIV, being somewhat more prevalent on the North-american continent. It has not been isolated in Europe so far, the only evidence of its existence being serological.

There is good evidence that BIV and the other animal retroviruses have no significance for public health. The disease is not considered to pose a serious threat to cattle herds, although reports from the United States do confirm its association with a chronic wasting condition. It is very misleading to refer to it as bovine acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), since it does not cause AIDS-like symptoms. However, further research is necessary to assess the importance of this virus.

The Commission and the Member States will assess any future evidence, particularly in respect of hazards to humans, and will not hesitate to take any necessary measures to protect consumers. The Commission has a policy of clarity and transparency in respect of public health issues and will make all information freely available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1895/96 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ARE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Adjustment of the special supply arrangements for the outermost regions provided for in the Posei programmes

The Commission has announced that the issue of permanent 'outermost region' status cannot be considered at the Florence European Council meeting. This can only mean that the special measures for the outermost regions will continue to apply under the Posei programmes.

Implementation of the GATT agreement, which substantially lowered the refunds payable in respect of certain products (mainly certain types of animal feed, foodstuffs for human consumption and inputs for the agri-foodstuffs industry), has almost totally deprived the special supply arrangements provided for in the Posei programmes of their effectiveness. Those arrangements must therefore be adjusted as a matter of urgency, since failure to do so before the end of the long drawn-out process of revising the Treaty on European Union would create serious distortions in the economies of such regions, owing to increased production costs in the agri-foodstuffs sector and rising consumer prices.

Given the above, does the Commission intend to adopt urgent measures under the rules establishing the various special supply arrangements, with a view to ensuring that supplies of animal feed, foodstuffs for human consumption and inputs for the agri-foodstuffs industry in the outermost regions are reasonably priced?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 3763/91, ((OJ L 356, 24.12.1991. )) 1600/92 ((OJ L 173, 27.6.1992. )) and 1601/922 (the basic regulations for the Poseidom, Poseima and Poseican programmes respectively) lay down special supply arrangements which, in accordance with local consumption patterns (direct or in the processing sector) allow originating products from third countries to be imported free of duty into the outermost regions. In the case of Community products, aid is granted so that they enjoy the same advantages as are conferred by the duty-free status accorded to products originating on the world market.

The Commission is particularly sensitive to the consequences of the current arrangements, as described by the Honourable Member. It has therefore set up an ad hoc discussion group to consider ways of adapting the current arrangements to prevent further harm to the economies of these regions.

Furthermore, the Commission recently adopted Regulations (EC) Nos 1203/96, ((OJ L 161, 29.6.1996. )) 1204/96,3 and 1205/963 adapting the aid arrangements in the cereals sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2115/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Illegal exports of BSE-contaminated meat

The Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs has admitted that a consignment of meat from 'mad cows' has been detected while passing through Italian customs, having been declared as a consignment of potatoes. This is not the first time we have read in the press recently of illegal exports of such meat.

Given the clear danger of such practices to the health of the EU public and given the warning issued by Community inspectors that UK measures to prevent exports of such meat leave room for improvement, what measures has the Commission taken to prevent illegal exports of British beef and veal and ensure that the UK carries out genuinely effective inspections?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

The Commission has carried out several inspections in the United Kingdom, including one on 22-26 July 1996. During this mission, the United Kingdom measures to prevent illegal exports were studied in detail. The British authorities have confirmed that it is an offence under national legislation to export a product of animal origin unless it meets the necessary health requirements. As a result of the recent information on illegal exports of bovine meal from the United Kingdom in contravention of the export ban, the Commission has made contact with officials from the British ministry of agriculture who informed the Commission, having investigated the matter, that they could find no confirmation of the alleged illegal exports. The Commission has requested that physical spot checks be carried out on export consignments and that regular information be provided to the Commission and the Member States on their findings. The British authorities have agreed.

Community inspections will continue and this matter will be reviewed again.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2073/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: BSE

Concerning the approaches being made to Switzerland (the Swiss veterinary authorities) with a view to learning more of the BSE situation in that country; has it been established that all Swiss BSE cases are attributed to cattle imported from the UK, or are home-bred cattle involved? If the latter, to what is the BSE attributed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1996)

The Swiss authorities confirm that all cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in their country have occured in native Swiss cattle. None were imported from the United Kingdom. The Commission has carried out a mission to examine the situation in Switzerland. The team was of the opinion that there is no endemic source of BSE in Switzerland.

The occurence of BSE is attributed to use of feed contaminated with the infectious agent and processed insufficiently to destroy it. Switzerland, like the United Kingdom, has in the past used relatively high levels of meat-and-bone meal in ruminant rations. The origin of this contaminated feed is difficult to determine. Direct imports from the United Kingdom were very low, but imports from many of the adjacent Member States have taken place.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: European voluntary service

It would seem that the first work experience for the European voluntary service is to take place in South Africa.

Since the project is being financed by the European Commission, the German Government and South Africa itself, can the Commission say:

1. why other Member States are not involved in the co-financing;

2. what criterion is being used to select the young European doctors?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (26 July 1996)

1. The initiative for the project came from the German organisation GTZ/CIM (Center for international migration), which proposed the project to the Commission for cofinancing. The Commission is following standard procedures dealing with proposals for cofinancing. These procedures do not imply the need to involve other cofinancing partners.

2. The candidates will be identified and preselected by GTZ/CIM in the Member States of the European Union. The final selection will be conducted by representatives of the ministry of health of South Africa at GTZ/CIM head office in Frankfurt am Main in Germany together with representatives of the Commission. The minimum formal requirement is the registration as medical practitioner and possession of the nationality of one of the Member States. Preference will be given to doctors specialising in anaesthetics, obstetrics and surgery under the age of 30 years. Furthermore, language skills and personal qualities, such as motivation and commitment, sense of responsibility and maturity, will be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1994/96 by Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) to the Council (18 July 1996)

Subject: Status of nurses working in the psychiatric sector

Can the Council say what measures are envisaged to accord professional status to nurses in the French psychiatric sector?

What progress could be made in the context of Directives 89/48/EEC ((OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p.16. )) and 92/51/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p.25. ))?

Reply (7 November 1996)

Recognition at Community level of nurses diplomas which do not fall within the scope of Directives 77/452/EEC ((Council Directive 77/452/EEC of 27 June 1977 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of nurses responsible for general care, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services. )) and 77/453/EEC ((Council Directive 77/453/EEC of 27 June 1977 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of nurses responsible for general care. )) is effected either within the framework of the first general system for the recognition of diplomas ((Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, P.16). )) if the training concerned is of a higher level and is of at least three years' duration, or within the framework of the second general system ((Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p.25). )) if those conditions are not fulfilled.

Recognition is effected by comparing the diploma held by the person concerned with that required in the host Member State. Adaptation mechanisms may come into play if there are "substantial differences" between the training received by the person concerned and that provided in the host Member State. Directive 92/51/EEC moreover provides for a system of "bridges" to cover cases in which the diploma required for pursuit of a profession is of a higher level in one Member State but is not in the other Member State.

It emerges from the foregoing that the two general systems do not establish "European professional status" for professions within their scope but only systems for recognition which take account of possible differences in the content or level of the education and training concerned. With Community law as it stands, the professional status of a naurse working in the psychiatric sector therefore comes fully within the competence of each Member State's competent authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various bodies

Does the Commission know the exact number of associations, NGOs or bodies which received subsidies under the Community budget in the financial year 1995?

Are they classified in the budget into chapters or major headings?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

Further to its answer of 16 July 1996, ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996, p. 120. )) the Commission is now able to communicate the following information.

A list of subsidies setting out by budget chapter the recipients, the number of subsidies, the amount involved and the total per chapter will be sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.