ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
No C 350/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 12. 83 
Answer 
(23 November 1983) aims of the two organizations and the developing 
nature of their tasks. 
At its meeting on 21 and 22 June 1983, the Council 
recorded its agreement on certain guidelines which the 
Community and the Member States propose to follow 
with respect to cooperation in a pragmatic and 
constructive spirit with the Council of Europe. 
The guidelines adopted include the following: 
— the Community in no way wishes to encroach on the 
field of jurisdiction or the activities of the Council of 
Europe and will continue constructive cooperation 
with it, as reaffirmed by the President of the Council 
before the European Parliament during a debate on 
the German-Italian initiative; 
— the Community stresses that, like the Council of 
Europe, it is concerned to see the widest possible 
application of the legal instruments of the Council of 
Europe and of the Community. The Community 
suggests that each of the two organizations examine 
the possibilities for action to that end. Informal talks 
have already started between the Secretariat of the 
Council of Europe and the Commission with the aim, 
in particular, of determining the Conventions to 
which the Community could accede; 
— the Community considers that no line should be 
drawn a priori between matters within the province of 
the Council of Europe and those within the province 
of the European Communities, given the different WRITTEN QUESTION No 1280/83 
by Mr William Newton Dunn (ED - GB) 
to the Commission of the European Communities 
(3 November 1983) 
Subject: Commission relations with Member State 
parliamentarians 
Does the Commission accept communications and visits 
about Community matters from individual members of 
Member State parliaments, or does it politely request 
them to make their approach through their member of the 
European Parliament? 
Answer given by Mr Andriessen 
on behalf of the Commission 
(16 November 1983) 
The Commission receives representations or requests for 
information from members of national parliaments from 
time to time, on matters related to the Community which 
are of concern to them. 
Naturally the Commission responds directly to their 
requests to the best of its ability as indeed it does to 
requests and representations from any individuals and 
organizations in the Community. 
CORRIGENDA 
Corrigendum to the answer to Written Question No 2365/82 by Mr John D. Taylor (ED-GB) 
to the Commission of the European Communities 
(Official Journal of the European Communities No C 197 of 25 July 1983) 
Page 22, point 2, second line: 
for: '50%', 
read: '5%'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/95 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Council (3 January 1996)

Subject: Indigenous peoples and the UN

Does the Council know if the final document by the UN working party on the human rights of indigenous peoples, drawn up after several years of work and consultation, is to be included on the agenda of the forthcoming UN General Assembly?

Reply (20 May 1996)

1. The final document to which the Honourable Member refers was prepared by a group of independent experts under the auspices of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights. The work of that group of experts did not involve Governments.

2. Growing international concern about the problems of indigenous peoples led the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) to decide at its 1995 annual session to set up an intergovernmental working group to investigate, between States, the issue of the human rights of indigenous peoples. This intergovernmental working group held its first meeting in Geneva in November 1995 and agreed to base its work on the independent experts' document. An interim report will be submitted to this year's session of the UNCHR (from 18 March to 26 April), which will be required to decide on the pace and timetable of the intergovernmental working group's further proceedings.

3. The matter cannot be referred to the UN General Assembly until the complex discussions taking place in both the working group and the UNCHR have reached a stage permitting the latter to make recommendations via ECOSOC to the General Assembly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3071/95 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (20 November 1995)

Subject: Funds for Lombardy, Piedmont, Liguria and the Aosta Valley

In the light of recent controversial reports in the Italian press concerning the regional Structural Funds, the use and the basis thereof, often the inability of certain regions to use them properly, the obscurity surrounding certain allocations of funding, etc., could the Commission provide information concerning the granting of funds to Lombardy, Piedmont, Liguria and the Aosta Valley during the period from 1.1.1985 to 31.12.1994, including, if possible, a breakdown for each individual year?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1996)

The Commission will send the breakdown of resources granted under the Structural Funds to Lombardy, Piedmont, Liguria and the Aosta Valley in recent years directly to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

It is interesting to note that, in the period 1985-88, these regions were eligible for certain non-quota programmes, e.g. in textiles, steel and shipbuilding. Since 1989, following the reform of the Structural Funds, some areas in these regions are eligible for Objectives 2 and 5b, in addition to Objectives 3, 4 and 5a.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2638/95 by Niels Sindal (PSE) and Kirsten Jensen (PSE) to the Commission (2 October 1995)

Subject: Labelling of liver sausage

The labelling of foodstuffs is sometimes very unclear, which can cause inconvenience to consumers in the EU. In the case in question, a consumer bought a calf's liver sausage only to find that it contained not veal, but pork.

In view of this, will the Commission state whether the German rules on meat and meat products No 2.11 permit veal/beef to be replaced by pork, so that a sausage sold as a calf's liver sausage contains no veal whatsoever?

Will the Commission also state whether the above state of affairs is compatible with EU legislation and, if so, what it intends to do about this problem so as to prevent consumers from being misled in such a way in future?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1996)

Further to its answer of 15 November 1995 ((OJ C 51, 21.2.1996. )) the Commission is now able to pass on the following information.

After consulting the German authorities on the problem raised by the Honourable Members, it has emerged that the German guidelines concerning meat and meat-based products enable 'veal liver sausage' which contains not veal but pigs' liver to be marketed. The foodstuff sold under that description must, nevertheless, contain veal or heifer meat. Since that description has been used for many years and since information is provided by the list of ingredients, the German authorities insist that German consumers are not misled by any such description.

In addition, Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in meat products, ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977. )) as amended and updated by Directive 92/5/EEC ((OJ L 57, 2.3.1992. )) states, as regards labelling, that where it does not emerge clearly from the sales description of the product or from the list of ingredients set out in detail in accordance with Directive 79/112/EEC ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. )) (labelling of foodstuffs), the species, whether one or more, from which the meat or meats have been obtained must be visibly entered on the packaging or label for the meat-based products.

According to this reply from the German authorities the relevant information is given to the consumer via the list of ingredients. Therefore the sales description at issue would comply with the provisions of Directive 77/99/EEC. That being the case the Commission does not intend to contact the German authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1819/95 by David Morris (PSE) to the Council (26 June 1995)

Subject: Administration of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons

Which Member States fully implement the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and which Member States have never agreed to any transfers where there are customs debts outstanding?

What steps does the Council intend to take to ensure that the spirit of the Convention is fully observed by all EU countries?

Joint Reply to Written Questions E-1378/95, E-1819/95 and E-1885/95 (10 October 1996)

1. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, established by the Council of Europe on 21 March 1983, has been signed and ratified by all the Member States of the European Union.

2. The practical operation of Council of Europe Conventions on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including the Convention of 21 March 1983, is being examined at the Council of Europe by a standing group of experts, which is able to make proposals to the Committee of Ministers.

The Council of the European Union is thus apprised of Recommendation No R(92) 18, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 19 October 1992, concerning the practical application of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

In the recommendation, the governments of Member States of the Council of Europe are invited, among other things, to take steps enabling them not to have to refuse a transfer on the sole grounds that fines imposed on the sentenced person in connection with his sentence have not been paid or that 'contrainte par corps' has been imposed.

3. The Council has not been called upon to ensure the application by the Member States of those provisions of the Conventions concerning the transfer of sentenced persons.

4. The Council is, however, considering the possibility of examining and adjusting the instruments that exist with regard to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including those concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of competition, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of competition in 1994 originated with the Commission?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0663/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of human resources, education, training and youth, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of human resources, education, training and youth were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3104/95 by Lilli Gyldenkilde (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (20 November 1995)

Subject: Coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts

How many agreements did each Member State communicate to the Commission in 1993 and 1994 pursuant to Article 3(a) of Council Directive 77/62/EEC ((OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1. )) coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts?

Will the Commission please provide a complete list of all types of public supply contracts connected with Member States' official development aid that are not covered by Article 3(a) of the directive coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1997)

As mentioned in the answer given on 17 January 1996, no agreements were notified in 1993 or 1994 to the Commission with explicit reference to Article 3(a) of Directive 77/62/EEC or Article 4(a) of Directive 93/36/EEC.

During that period, 33 notifications were, however, made pursuant to Council Decision 74/393/EEC establishing a consultation procedure for cooperation agreements between Member States and third countries. A further 34 notifications were made pursuant to other provisions of Community law.

The Commission has now examined these agreements, none of which would seem to meet the criteria for exemption from the public procurement directives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0681/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of anti-fraud measures, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of anti-fraud measures were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/96 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Increasing the Greek national guaranteed quantity for dried fodder

Greece's national guaranteed quantity (NGQ) for dried fodder has been set at 32 000 tonnes although its actual annual production is of the order of 50 000 tonnes.

As Greece is the only EU Member State whose national guaranteed quantity does not correspond to its actual production, but represents a mere 64% of that figure, will the Commission state whether it intends to take action to adjust the quantity laid down in Regulation 603/95 ((OJ L 63, 21.3.1995, p. 1. )) to bring the Greek national guaranteed quantity up to 50 000 tonnes a year, thus helping ensure the survival of the dried fodder industry which has encountered severe problems because of the current system?

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

The Council compromise of July 1994 on the reform of the dried fodder sector was intended to put an end to the fast development of dried fodder production and uncontrolable growth of related budgetary expenses. One of the major issues of the reform was the establishment of maximum guaranteed quantities for dehydrated fodder as well as for sun-dried fodder.

On the same occasion, the Council agreed upon the national guaranteed quantities (NGQs) attributed to the Member States for both kinds of dried fodder. Those NGQs were calculated on the basis of the subsidised production of dried fodder (dehydrated and sun-dried) in the Member States during the reference marketing years 1992/1993 and 1993/1994.

The same rule was applied to all Member States and it implied, for some of them, fixing NGQs less than the level of their last production before the reform, owing to the fast upward trend of that production. This problem does not, therefore, only relate to Greece. As a consequence, should the Council agree to increase the Greek NGQ, those other Member States which find themselves in the situation described above would certainly apply for an increase of their NGQs and this would obviously be against the Council's intentions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/96 by Pavlos Sarlis (PPE) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Sewage networks on the islands of Hydra, Poros, Aegina, Mesagro (Aegina) and the towns of Methana and Galatha

In 1987 work began with financial aid from the Community on sewage networks on the islands of Hydra, Poros, Aegina (town) and Mesagro and the towns of Methana and Galatha; these are international holiday resorts visited every year by millions of European tourists. So far all the central pipes of the network and certain peripheral ones have been completed, together with a small number of pumping stations.

Work on the completion of these projects was suspended in 1992 on the islands of Aegina and Hydra and the town of Mesagro and in 1993 on the island of Poros and Methana, although the following had not yet been constructed: - the biological purification units, - most of the pumping stations, - most of the peripheral pipes.

The deadline for the completion of these projects and the possible entry into operation of the sewage networks is being constantly postponed. In the meantime, those sections of the networks which have been constructed are in immediate danger of being destroyed.

There are persistent rumours that the suspension of the sewage projects is due to the suspension of Community funding.

Why has the Commission suspended funding of these projects?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1996)

The networks referred to were financed and built under the Attic Integrated Mediterranean Programme. According to the Commission's information, most of the secondary networks were completed with national funds.

In the Attic operational programme for the period 1994-99 the Greek authorities proposed cofinancing the sewage treatment plants for networks already completed, namely those in the towns of Hydra, Poros-Galata, Methana, Mesagro (Aegina), Kapsali and Potamos on the Island of Kithira.

The delay in starting the works in question is due to the preparation of the requisite preparatory studies (environmental impact study, etc.) in order that these projects may be co-financed by Community structural funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0273/96 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (15 February 1996)

Subject: Marriages of convenience

What action is the Commission taking against the UK Government regarding its application of a condition not permitted under Community law, that is to say an assessment under national law of whether a marriage is one of 'convenience', to applications for residence permits by non-EU-national spouses of EU nationals exercising treaty free movement rights in the UK?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 April 1996)

The Commission is aware of the problems caused by British legislation on marriages of convenience. It has received numerous complaints from Community nationals and their non-Community spouses who have had difficulty in obtaining a residence permit in the United Kingdom.

The Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the United Kingdom concerning several aspects of this legislation. It is currently examining the United Kingdom's reply in order to ascertain whether there are still problems regarding the consistency of British legislation with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0652/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: EU projects in the Gran Chaco region

The Gran Chaco covers around one million square kilometres in the border area of Paraguay, Argentina and Bolivia. Experts and NGOs fear that developments brought about by Mercosur will bring far-reaching changes to this region and in particular that places inhabited by indigenous peoples could be severely damaged.

In which projects in the Gran Chaco region is the Commission involved by way of co-financing or via the EIB?

Are there any studies of these projects which consider their possible impact on indigenous peoples?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (19 April 1996)

On 26 March 1991 Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay signed the Treaty of Asunción establishing what is known as Mercosur. The Treaty, modelled on the approach adopted by the Community, is a regional integration agreement the objectives of which include economic and social development and hence the development of all the regions, as in the case of the Community.

There are two projects financed by the Commission, namely the Ramón Lista project in the Formosa region of Argentina, the main objective of which is development assistance for the indigenous population, and the project for the sustainable development of the Paraguayan part of the Chaco region (protection of the indigenous population's way of life and the environment) in Paraguay. For further details on the second project, the Commission requests the Honourable Member to refer also to the answers to Written Questions E-563/95 from Mr Howitt, ((OJ No C 179, 13.7.1995. )) E-2333/95 ((OJ No C 340, 18.12.1995. )) and E-2334/95 from Mr Vandemeulebroucke, ((OJ No C 9, 15.1.1996. )) P-2470/95 from Mrs Castellina ((OJ No C 66, 4.3.1996. )) and E-2463/95 from Mr Kreissl-Dörfler and Mrs Alvoet. ((OJ No C 40, 12.2.1996. ))

To the Commission's knowledge, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is not involved in the Grand Chaco region.