ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1457/97 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1997)

Subject: Extent of prostitution

According to an article in the morning newspaper, Jyllandsposten, (7 April 1997), the District of Ringkøbing recently carried out a survey to determine the extent of prostitution in West Jutland in Denmark. The survey highlights problems that follow in the wake of prostitution in a small area of Denmark and reveals that approximately 130 women in the district are making a living from prostitution while collecting social security benefits.

In the light of this article, will the Commission say:

1. whether it knows the extent of prostitution in the EU, and

2. whether EU budget appropriations have been set aside for social measures designed to integrate prostitutes into normal working life?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)

The Commission has no figures relating to the extent of prostitution in the EU as a whole. However, this question can be answered in terms of the various measures that the Community has taken with regard to prevention and the social reintegration of persons involved in prostitution. For example:

* in June 1996 a European Conference on Trafficking in Women was organised jointly by the European Commission and the International Organisation for Migration, in Vienna;

* pilot social reintegration projects have been selected for funding under budget line B3-4103, 'Measures to combat poverty and social exclusion'. The Commission has also co-financed projects by the Fédération européene pour la disparition de la prostitution, the latest being a comic strip published in November 1996 entitled 'Pour toi Sandra' which aims to inform young people about prostitution and the associated risks;

* finally, the Commission recently launched a call for proposals under the 'Daphne' initiative ((OJ C 136, 1.5.1997. )) relating to the new 1997 budget line B3-4109, 'Measures for combating violence against children, young people and women'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0847/97 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Major projects

Under the current financial perspective, how many 'major projects' were submitted to the Commission for funding in the Objective 1 regions, and what were they?

Is it possible to provide a break-down of these projects by Member State, state of approval and inclusion (or otherwise) in Community Support Frameworks or single planning documents?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1997)

Major projects are part-financed by the Structural Funds either individually or, for the most part, under regional Operational Programmes managed by the Member State concerned.

Since 1994 the annual reports on the Structural Funds have contained a list of the few major projects approved by the Commission on an individual basis in each Member State. Member States are not required to provide the Commission with information about major projects included in operational programmes at the time the aid is granted but only at a later stage, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 as amended ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0840/97 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Disturbing prospects threatening the continuation of the Murcia region's status as an Objective 1 region

There have been a number of media reports reflecting the concern which has arisen in the Murcia region on account of the potential implications of a lowering of the criteria for eligibility as an Objective 1 region, a status which gives entitlement to maximum aid from the Structural Funds, following the accession of the countries of central and eastern Europe.

The situation will get worse if the amounts allocated are not increased proportionately since per capita GDP in the region concerned would automatically remain above the Community average, which would lead to a paradoxical situation in which inequality, precariousness and the lack of a productive sector would continue, with the added difficulty that no further funding would be received.

Does the Commission not therefore think that, in the event of enlargement of the EU, the Structural Fund framework regulation, the ERDF regulation and other financial instruments should be conscientiously revised so as to enable the region in question to continue as a prime beneficiary of Community solidarity? If so, how is it intending to carry out such a revision?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (18 April 1997)

The list of less-developed regions eligible under Objective 1 of the Structural Funds was adopted by the Council in July 1993 on the basis of a Commission proposal. It will remain valid until the end of 1999.

With regard to the period after 1999, the Commission intends to propose the financial perspective and guidelines for future cohesion policy after the end of the intergovernmental conference.

Thereafter, the Commission will propose new regulations for the Structural Funds, accompanied by a proposal for a new list of less-developed regions in the fifteen Member States. This list will be drawn up in the context of a Community with fifteen Member States, to take account of actual progress in terms of real convergence.

With regard to the economic situation in Murcia in particular, the statistics currently available do not call into question its eligibility under Objective 1 if the eligibility criteria remain unchanged.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0340/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in Spain

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

Of this expenditure, storage measures had a negative value in 1995, standing at ECU * 94.9 million.

What is the total figure for expenditure on storage measures in respect of olive oil in Spain?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1102/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Results of the European programme for the promotion of health

What projects have been finally selected under the European programme for the promotion of health, which NGOs have submitted them, of what nationalities are these NGOs and how much aid, or what type of aid, has been provided via the programme?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Farmers in Sweden

Will the Commission say how many farmers there are in Sweden and how many people are directly employed in agriculture in that country at the present time?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0989/97, E-0990/97, E-0991/97, E-0992/97, E-0993/97, E-0994/97, E-0995/97, E-0996/97, E-0997/97, E-0998/97, E-0999/97, E-1000/97, E-1001/97, E-1002/97 and E-1003/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1997)

Survey on the structure of farms

>TABLE>

Source: Eurostat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1180/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: First Italian patent for a transgenic rat

On 3 December 1996, the Italian patents and trade marks office at the Ministry of Industry issued patent No 1.265.794 to the Angeletti Institute for Molecular Biology Research, the first patent ever to be granted in respect of a transgenic animal, namely a rat predisposed to develop liver cancer.

Articles 52 and 53 of the European Convention on Patents signed in Munich in 1973 stipulates that patents may not be issued for plant species and animal breeds, and there are no Italian or European rules which would exclude plant or animal species produced by genetic engineering from the abovementioned provisions of the Convention. On the contrary, Parliament rejected a proposal for a directive on this subject on 1 March 1995 arguing that the issuing of patents should be prohibited for genetically modified organisms.

Does the Commission not consider that the decision taken by the Italian patents office runs counter to the view expressed by Parliament and the Munich Convention, bearing in mind also that a fresh proposal for a directive is under discussion in Parliament and that a similar application to the European Patents Office is still awaiting a reply pending a legal definition of this delicate question, which raises not only legal, but also ethical and scientific issues?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1997)

The Commission would stress in reply to the Honourable Member's question that it has no remit for assessing whether a decision taken by a national patent office is in line with the wishes of Parliament and the provisions of the Munich Convention on the granting of European patents.

As regards the new proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions ((COM(95) 661 final. )), the text put forward by the Commission contains provisions confirming the patentability of animals and plants and addressing the ethical dimension of the patentability of animals. It suggests, with regard to the exclusion from patentability on grounds of public policy or morality, that 'processes for modifying the genetic identity of animals which are likely to cause them suffering or physical handicaps without any substantial benefit to man or animal, and also animals resulting from such processes' should be considered unpatentable 'whenever the suffering or physical handicaps inflicted on the animals concerned are disproportionate to the objective pursued'.

Under the co-decision procedure, Parliament will have the opportunity of giving its views on the Commission's proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/97 by Anthony Wilson (PSE) to the Commission (14 May 1997)

Subject: Unidentified flying objects (UFOs)

Does the Commission acknowledge that European airspace has been penetrated on several occasions by unidentified craft whose performance characteristics, such as flight and manoeuvrability, far exceed state-of-the-art aircraft design?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1624/97, E-1625/97 and E-1721/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1997)

In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested. It is therefore unable to answer the question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1152/97 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: Use of lead shot and clay pigeons at rifle ranges

Is the Commission aware that not inconsiderable pollution of the soil is caused by the use of clay pigeons compression-moulded from petroleum products (polycyclical aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs) and by lead shot?

Is the Commission also aware that there are alternatives to both products which would eliminate this pollution, or at least reduce it to a minimum: for example, the clay pigeons manufactured by Auramatrix Ifo O.Y. and shot cartridges made of bismuth, zinc or steel?

Is the Commission also aware that the Netherlands has entered into an agreement with the NBVS (the Netherlands association of rifle-range owners) whereby the use of lead shot will continue to be permitted for a maximum of 15 years and the land covered by this agreement will eventually be cleared (after 30 years at the latest)?

Does the Commission feel it is possible to introduce this measures at European level (in the Netherlands it will take the form of an administrative order) and does it intend to take any initiatives in this respect?

If so, in what way? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

The Commission does not view the problem raised by the Honorable Member as requiring action at Community level.

The Commission does therefore not intend to take any initiative in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1170/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Andalusian avocados in difficulty from Mexican competition

Andalusian avocados, a hitherto prosperous crop which has experienced no marketing problems, is now suffering from foreign competition. Avocado production contributes some 12 billion pesetas to the Andalusian economy and represents the livelihood of some 5000 families.

However, exports of this tropical product are endangered by competition from Mexican avocados, because Mexico, which has many problems in the US market, has turned to the EU as an outlet for avocados which are cheaper than their Spanish counterparts, thanks to the fact that Mexican labour costs are lower than those in Andalusia.

Given that the outlook for the future is worrying, can the Commission tell me what options are available under the COM in fruit for protecting Andalusian avocados against foreign competition, given that this product is particularly important, both in economic and ecological terms, to the Andalusian economy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)

The Commission is aware of the importance of avocado growing in southern Spain and the situation regarding imports, which increased by about 16% during the period 1991-95. Mexico is the Community's largest supplier of avocados and, together with Israel and South Africa, is responsible for 90% of Community imports.

Avocados receive greater protection during the Community production period. Accordingly, conventional import duties on avocados are 7.5% from 1 June to 30 November and 4% during the rest of the year ((Commission Regulation (EC) No 3009/95 of 22 December 1995 amending Annex1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ L 319, 30.12.1995. )).

The Commission nevertheless continues to monitor trends on this market and would point out that the new provisions under the reformed market organization for fruit and vegetables, particularly the operational funds, should make it possible to develop measures to improve the marketing of Community avocados. Moreover, Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables ((OJ L 297, 21.11.1996. )) provides for the possibility of introducing specific measures to improve the marketing of certain products of local importance which are subject to strong international competition should the general instruments of the market organization prove insufficient.

In addition, still in the context of the reform of the sector, a Community marketing standard for avocados has recently received a favourable opinion from the Management Committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1157/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: The Greek steel industry

The Greek steel industry is facing problems as a result of imports of iron and steel from third countries.

Bearing in mind Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 ((OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53. )) and in particular Articles 11 and 15 thereof on surveillance and Articles 16, 17 and 18 on provisional safeguard measures, how would the Commission view any request by the

competent Greek authorities that protective measures be taken to deal with the problems facing Greek steel producers, if it found that there was sufficient evidence that Greek producers of similar or directly competing products had suffered or were in danger of suffering serious losses?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

Two Community prior surveillance measures based on Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 are currently in force. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2412/96 of 18 December 1996 introducing prior Community surveillance of imports of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC and EC Treaties originating in certain third countries ((OJ L 329 of 19.12.1996, p. 11. )) establishes prior surveillance for a range of steel products entering the Community in 1997. Commission Regulation No 754/96 of 25 April 1996 introducing prior Community surveillance of imports of certain steel cables originating in non-member countries ((OJ L 103 of 26.04.1996, p. 6 )) applies a similar system for steel cables until 30 June 1997. Both measures provide early warning of likely import trends.

Statistics concerning actual imports are not yet available for the whole of 1996, since a number of Member States, including Greece, are late in providing their figures to the Statistical office. However, figures for the first nine months of 1996 show that imports of ECSC Treaty steel products were 8.2 million tonnes, 26% less than the same period a year earlier. Imports of flat products were stable at 5.1 million tonnes, 3% less than the previous year, while imports of long products fell by 40% to 1.7 million tonnes (semi-finished products make up the balance). Although down, the volume of steel imports into the Community remains high and, in some cases, price levels prevent lasting stabilization of this open, highly competitive market. The Community's forward programme for steel for the first half of 1997 forecasts that imports should continue to contract in the first semester before gradually leveling off during the second semester.

Council Regulation No 3285/94 states that a Member State shall inform the Commission if it considers that the trends in imports call for surveillance or safeguard measures. The Commission is not currently aware of any specific Greek concerns relating to safeguard measures in the steel sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1053/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Structural Fund priorities

Following an assessment of the results of the application of the Structural Funds since the last reform of the implementing regulations, which priorities and objectives does the Commission think the Structural Funds should concentrate on in the immediate future?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

The existing objectives of the structural funds remain in force until the end of 1999. However, the Commission seeks to use the margins of flexibility which exist so as to adjust priorities in its economic and social programmes to ensure that they address current problems and take advantage of current opportunities. For the old industrial regions, eligible under objective 2 of the structural funds, where programmes follow a three-year cycle, the new programming period 1997-1999 will lay greater stress on new job creation and on the promotion of competitiveness and innovation, sustainable development and equality of opportunity between the sexes.

For other objectives, which follow a six-year programming cycle -five years in the case of objective 6 - the Commission is currently undertaking a mid-term review. The aim is not to alter radically existing priorities but to suggest ways for Member States to reinforce efficiency within the programmes in order to improve results especially in terms of raising levels of competitiveness and new job creation.

Beyond 1999, the Community must continue to seek to ensure maximum effectiveness for its cohesion policies. In its conclusions to the first cohesion report ((COM(96) 542. )) the Commission underlined the need to maintain support for the poorest regions as the top priority. It also recognised the need to support the problems faced by other parts of the Community experiencing 'rapid economic and industrial change, including changes affecting rural areas, urban deprivation, social exclusion, congestion and other territorial imbalances and the unsustainable use of scarce resources'.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1589/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (6 May 1997)

Subject: Problems arising in Greece for owners of private vehicles registered elsewhere in the Community.

The owners of private vehicles with foreign registration plates suffer constant harassment in Greece, being subjected to repeated police checks and required to produce documents (tickets etc.) to prove that the vehicle has been in Greek territory for less than six months.

Is this in accordance with Community legislation on the free movement of persons and goods, assuming of course that the owners and drivers of vehilces registered in the Community are fully complying with the law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-190/97 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 35. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1317/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Cruelty to animals in Spain

Is the Commission aware of an article in the Daily Mail of 12 February 1997 involving cruelty to a donkey in a ceremony in Spain? The ceremony referred to took place on Shrove Tuesday in the village of Villaneuva de la Vera and involved a donkey being paraded through the streets and plied with wine, cider and sangria over a period of two and a half hours.

What action is being taken by the Commission to prevent such cruel ceremonies taking place?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

The Commission deplores all cruelty towards animals. Although Community legislation has been adopted to protect the welfare of farm livestock, and transported animals, and to cover the killing of animals kept for the production of meat, skin, fur or other products and also for the protection of laboratory animals, no overall general anti-cruelty legislation at Community level exists.

The question raised by the Honourable Member therefore falls within the sole responsibility of the Spanish authorities.