ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3629/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B5-102: Consumer information

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading B5-102: Consumer information?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4011: Eures (European Employment Services)

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the subsidies earmarked in 1995, under budget heading

B3-4011: Eures (European Employment Services)

for each activity, trade union, association and works council?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/97 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Tobacco duty on medicinal herbal cigarettes

A medicinal herbal cigarette of the Planterette Monte Verdo brand is imported by De Cruydhof in the Netherlands from Belgium. The cigarette contains no tobacco, is specially developed to help people to give up smoking and is sold only through chemists shops and pharmacies. According to the Netherlands customs authorities it falls within the same category of duty as tobacco products. In Belgium, France, the United Kingdom and Spain no tobacco duty is levied on the same product.

1. Does the Commission share my view that no tobacco duty should be levied on a medicinal product which contains no tobacco and is intended to help people to stop smoking?

2. If not, why not? If so, is the Commission prepared to contact the Netherlands authorities in order to guarantee that the same type of duty is levied on the same type of product in all countries of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (4 April 1997)

Community legislation on the taxation of tobacco products requires that products consisting in whole or in part of substances other than tobacco but otherwise conforming to the criteria used to define cigarettes and smoking tobacco shall be treated as such products. Notwithstanding this, products containing no tobacco and used exclusively for medical purposes shall not be treated as manufactured tobacco (Article 7(2) of Directive 95/59/EC on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco) ((OJ L 291, 6.12.1995. )).

The Commission is examining the situation regarding the products in question, in the light of the apparent discrepancies in practice between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0118/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (29 January 1997)

Subject: Legislative timetable for replacing certain rules envisaged in the ECSC Treaty

In reply to a question (H-0729/95) ((Debates of the European Parliament No 4-470 (November 1995). )) on public aid to the energy sector, Commissioner Christos Papoutsis, referring to aid to the coal industry, stated 'It is more than likely, however, that the branch will continue being restructured beyond that time [2002] and that the social and regional factors which have entailed support measures in the past will continue to exist in the framework of the European Union Treaty.'

Given that this date is fast approaching and in view of the concern felt by inhabitants of mining regions, can the Commissioner say what type of measures the Commission plans to take and what timetable it envisages for their implementation?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1997)

By 30 June 1997 at the latest the Commission must report to the Council on the implementation of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry ((OJ L 329, 30.12.1993. )).

The Commission therefore feels it would be premature to adopt other initiatives before the report's findings are known and action taken upon them, and ahead of any conclusions reached in this area by the intergovernmental conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1529/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Information on EC assistance granted to the Saarland from January to December 1996

In what amounts and for what measures did the Saarland receive Community resources in 1996 from:

1. the European Social Fund,

2. the Fourth Framework Research Programme,

3. the European Regional Development Fund,

4. the Community environment and energy programmes,

5. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance and Guarantee Sections,

6. other Community programmes?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1528/97 and E-1529/97 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0555/97 by Monica Baldi (UPE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Mobile telephony

The mobile telephony market has yet to be fully liberalized. This situation is penalizing users, in that the services provided are of a lower quality than they would be in a truly competitive environment.

It is quite common for the clerical departments of mobile telephony companies to demand proof of payment of bills which have been settled a long time earlier and, without further warning, to cut off the service over the weekend, thus unjustly depriving users of their phones.

Would the Commission state:

- what protection is available to European consumers if their telephone service is cut off arbitrarily and without justification (this applies in particular to GSM cellular services)?

- what steps it intends to take with a view to protecting consumers, who have a right to a normal standard of service?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

The Commission is not aware of specific complaints regarding the disconnection during weekends of the service of either GSM (pan-European digital mobile cellular system) operator in Italy. These operators have mentioned problems caused by subscribers who, after a few months, cease to pay their bills.

The grant of additional digital mobile telephony licences in Italy would be a strong incentive for the current operators to improve their relationship with their subscribers. In those mobile communications markets in Europe where competition is well developed with three or even four competing mobile operators, prices are driven down and operators are forced continuously to improve their service. The result is good quality service at low prices.

Under Directive 90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecommunications services ((OJ L 192, 24.7.1990. )), as amended by Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 with regard to mobile and personal communications ((OJ L 20, 26.1.1996. )), Member States must abolish exclusive and special rights for the provision of mobile services and, in so far as frequencies are available, award licences according to open, non-discriminatory and transparent procedures. Where the frequencies available in the 900 MHz (Megahertz) band are insufficient to grant more than two mobile digital radiotelephony licences, the Member States must allocate frequencies in the 1880 MHz band for this purpose. Under Directive 96/2/EC Member States may not refuse to grant such licences at the latest by 1 January 1998. Italy informed the Commission in January 1996 that it would initiate a tender procedure for the selection of a DCS-1800 mobile telephony operator within a short period of time. This undertaking has recently been confirmed.

Initiatives have been taken to improve consumer protection in the telecommunications sector both by national authorities, which have (for instance in the case of Belgium) appointed an ombudsman to deal with customers' complaints, and by the Commission, which has sponsored the establishment of a committee comprising Telecom Italia and consumer representatives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0987/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 March 1997)

Subject: EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in the United Kingdom

Can the Commission specify how much funding the United Kingdom received in total from the EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in 1996, giving a breakdown

per chapter (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silkworms, fruit and vegetables, other plant sectors or products, the vine-growing sector, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef and veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat, other animal product aid measures, refunds on processed agricultural products, refunds in connection with EU food aid, the distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons in the Community, accompanying measures, rural development measures related to the operation of markets, other measures, income aid and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund), and

per procedure (export refunds, compensatory pricing aid, 'area' aid, aid per head of stock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawal and similar operations, compensatory amounts, accompanying measures for reform of the CAP and public storage expenditure)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0974/97, E-0975/97, E-0976/97, E-0977/97, E-0978/97, E-0979/97, E-0980/97, E-0981/97, E-0982/97, E-0983/97, E-0984/97, E-0985/97, E-0986/97, E-0987/97 and E-0988/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0930/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The EDF and the fisheries agreement with Mozambique

Can the Commission say what appropriations were paid to Mozambique under the EDF in 1995 and 1996 to finance the development of the national fisheries sector, and can it list the specific products for which this aid was used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0923/97, E-0924/97, E-0925/97, E-0926/97, E-0927/97, E-0928/97, E-0929/97, E-0930/97, E-0931/97, E-0932/97, E-0933/97 and E-0934/97 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

In reply to questions on allocations and specific projects to develop the fisheries sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, a document listing fisheries projects in developing countries that have received EC aid has been sent to the Honourable Member and lodged with Parliament's General Secretariat.

The document comprises tables giving detailed information including the types of project, their objectives, the recipients and the Community contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0646/97 by Elisabeth Schroedter (V) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Investment grant from the Government of the Land of Brandenburg for a motor racing track

1. Is the Commission aware that the Government of the Land of Brandenburg is providing a subsidy of DM 241.6 million - 90% of the subsidizable amount - using 50% ERDF Structural Fund appropriations, for the infrastructure for a motor racing track and ancillary facilities, such as a test track, although the Government itself forecasts that it will create only 330 jobs when in use, while serious comparisons with existing motor sport facilities, as well as the plans of the investor in the ancillary facilities, suggest that only 130 permanent jobs will actually be created?

2. Is such a large investment grant compatible with the indicator of the CSF (ECU 60 000 per new job created for Objectives 1 and 2)? If not, to what extent is the Commission able and willing to bring its influence to bear in accordance with legal provisions with a view to countering such a disregard for the fundamental principles and objectives of the Structural Funds?

3. Is the Commission aware that there is no need for an investment of this size and nature, and that two similar existing establishments are liable to lose business as a result?

Should Structural Fund resources which are intended to assist disadvantaged areas be used to promote this kind of subsidy shopping?

If not, what will the Commission do to stop it?

4. Is the Commission aware that, in order to subsidize this project, the Land Government is withholding subsidy funds, contrary to the rules, from local infrastructure investment in the field of environmental protection, vocational training, further training and retraining establishments and service centres to promote SMEs?

Will the Commission accept this way of administering subsidies?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

The Land of Brandenburg has informed the Commission that the application for European regional development fund support for the project in question has been withdrawn.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0632/97 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (21 February 1997)

Subject: OCT decision and the Netherlands Antilles

1. Does the Commission share the view that the interim change in the trade preferences of the Netherlands Antilles under the OCT decision is a deliberated strategy and premature attempt to influence the review of that decision which is currently under way?

2. Does the Commission also agree that this constitutes improper influence?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

In proposing changes to the trade arrangements applying to the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) the Commission relied on precise data and did not act in a 'premature' fashion. Far from being guilty of improper administration, it displayed constancy and consistency.

On 14 February 1996 the Commission presented a proposal to the Council for a Decision amending at mid-term Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Community ((COM (95) 739 final. )). The review was conducted pursuant to Article 240 of that same Decision.

As regards the unilateral preferential arrangements applying since 1991 to products exported to the Community from the OCTs, the amendments proposed by the Commission are designed to ease the serious disruption that has already occurred or that may occur in the short term on Community markets for sensitive agricultural products such as rice, sugar, dairy products, beef and fruit juice. In making these adjustments, the Commission did not however propose abolishing the free access to the Community market applying since 1991 to products originating in the OCTs. This is the only such case among all the different trade arrangements in force.

The Commission also feels that the provisions it proposes to change have led to speculation that has been highly detrimental to Community producers and the Community budget without achieving the OCTs' economic and social development objectives spelled out in the association decision.

In a report presented to the Council in November 1993, the Commission had already underscored the urgent need - in the wake of the adoption in 1993 of safeguard measures for OCT rice - to modify these arrangements ((COM(93) 555 final. )).

This report set out various approaches to remedy these problems and already included a proposal for minimum prices which was discussed in the Council over a period of two years (1994 and 1995) without being adopted.

In the absence of a Council Decision on the mid-term review proposed at the beginning of 1996 owing to the objections of one of the fifteen Member States (around 30 meetings, of which seven Coreper and two General Affairs Councils), the Commission and the Council had to propose fresh safeguard measures in January this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0647/97 by Konrad Schwaiger (PPE) and Jan Sonneveld (PPE) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Absence of EU and ACP bananas from the German and Scandinavian markets

The organization of the market in bananas deals with their marketing throughout the Community, irrespective of country of origin. It is striking that few if any bananas from EU or ACP countries are offered for sale on the German and Scandinavian markets.

1. Can the Commission confirm that EU and ACP bananas do not reach the German and Scandinavian markets?

2. Why is the EU market in bananas functioning so badly?

3. Are existing legal instruments capable of remedying this situation or will the Commission create other incentives in order to attain this goal as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 April 1997)

Since the adoption in July 1993 of the common organization of the market, bananas of various origins are available on what has now become a Community-wide market.

1. Thus, bananas from Community regions and from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (the ACP States) are regularly marketed in Germany and occasionally on the Scandinavian markets, Denmark in particular.

2. Before the common organization of the market was introduced, national markets were segregated. Community and ACP bananas were mostly marketed on their traditional markets. Furthermore, before the three new Member States acceded to the Community, they did not import bananas from the Community's producer regions or from the ACP states. One cannot conclude that the common organization of the market in bananas is functioning badly three years after its introduction. Breaking down the barriers between the markets is a gradual process, involving the establishment of new commercial partnerships and long-term contracts.

3. The Commission feels that it is inappropriate to introduce other legislative measures to increase integration of the markets, which relies on partnerships between those trading in bananas of various origins.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0599/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (27 February 1997)

Subject: Performance of the structural funds

It is understood that there were problems relating to the payment side of the Structural Funds especially in Objectives 2-6.

Can the Commission give a detailed breakdown of where these problems occurred, in which Member States and the regions within those Member States.

Can the Commission also give an indication of the causes of the problems?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

It is not quite clear what type of problem the Honourable Member has in mind. The Commission is not aware of any overall problem concerning payments at Community level under objectives 2 to 6 of the structural funds. However, it is important for the progress on the ground under the various programmes to be vigorously maintained, and for the Member States' financial contributions to these programmes to be made available on time.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The EDF and the fisheries agreement with Senegal

Can the Commission say what appropriations were paid to Senegal under the EDF in 1995 and 1996 to finance the development of the national fisheries sector, and can it list the specific products for which this aid was used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0923/97, E-0924/97, E-0925/97, E-0926/97, E-0927/97, E-0928/97, E-0929/97, E-0930/97, E-0931/97, E-0932/97, E-0933/97 and E-0934/97 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

In reply to questions on allocations and specific projects to develop the fisheries sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, a document listing fisheries projects in developing countries that have received EC aid has been sent to the Honourable Member and lodged with Parliament's General Secretariat.

The document comprises tables giving detailed information including the types of project, their objectives, the recipients and the Community contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1103/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Committee on employment and the labour market

Have all the Member States appointed their representatives to the recently created committee on employment and the labour market?

Who is the current chairman of the committee, what is his/her nationality and what is the procedure for rotating the chairmanship? Does the committee already have its own rules of procedure and a work programme for 1997?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

One Member State has still to nominate a representative and an alternate to the Committee. Four Member States have yet to nominate alternate members, although they are under no obligation to do so. It is hoped that all nominations will be finalised in the next few weeks.

Dr Hans Borstlap from the Dutch ministry of labour and social affairs was elected chairman of the committee at the first meeting on 29 January 1997. He will hold the position for a non-renewable term of two years.

The committee adopted its rules of procedure at the third meeting on 20 March 1997. A draft work programme has been submited to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0831/97 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: EU Directive 93/104/EC - Organization of working time

Could the Commission confirm that it is of the opinion that EU Directive 93/104/EC ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18. )) applies to the activities of armed forces but that certain activities which are incompatible with it are excluded?

The Department of Defence in Ireland will neither confirm nor deny that this is the Commission's position.

What exactly is the position of the Commission's Legal Service in regard to Directive 93/104/EC and its applicability to armed forces?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

The scope of application of Directive 93/104/EC ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. )) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time is defined by Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC ((OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. )) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers. Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391/EEC states that

'This Directive shall not be applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to certain specific activities in the civil protection services inevitably conflict with it'.

Each Member State is clearly in a better position than the Commission to assess, in the light of the arrangements in that Member State, the circumstances in which and the extent to which activities of the armed forces are likely to conflict with the provisions of the Working time Directive.