ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0673/96 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Council (18 March 1996)

Subject: Insertion of a clause in the EU-Slovenia association agreement on closing the Krsko nuclear power station

Can the Council confirm the recent studies carried out by Greenpeace pointing to the extreme danger posed by the Krsko nuclear power station which is situated in the part of Slovenia most prone to earthquakes - just over 100 km from Trieste - where more than a hundred earthquakes were recorded between 1628 and 1990?

Does the Council not consider it essential to insert a clause in the EU-Slovenia association agreement on closing the Krsko nuclear power station in view, also, of the power station's intrinsic obsolescence?

Reply (2 August 1996)

1. The Council is unable to comment on the information relating to the Krsko nuclear power station as given by the Honourable Member. It should, however, be stressed that Slovenia has signed the convention on the Safety of Nuclear Power Stations ((The Convention is not yet in force. )).

2. The Council attaches very great importance to nuclear safety in the countries of Eastern Europe. In that connection, it would draw attention to the conclusions it adopted on 25 May 1994, in which it reaffirmed its commitment to assist with improving nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS and its awareness of the need to pursue such improvements within the framework of sustainable medium and long-term energy strategies for those countries.

3. In the Agreement between the European Union and Slovenia, signed in Luxembourg on 10 June 1996, emphasis is placed on nuclear safety measures. Article 81 of the Agreement explicitly refers to them. In addition, in a joint declaration annexed to the Final Act, the Parties to the Agreement "agree between themselves to establish the methods and means necessary for the establishment of an efficient system for the exchange of information in the case of a radiological emergency".
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1379/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: VAT zero-rating on books

What stage has the Commission consultation paper reached on the move from a transitional to a definitive VAT regime? Would the Commission also guarantee that on products such as books, which play a crucial role in raising standards of education, it will allow individual Member States to retain a VAT zero-rating?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1996)

The Commission intents to present a working programme for the setting up of a new VAT system for the single market, and an outline of the main features of the system before the 1996 summer break. This new VAT system is necessary for the completion of the single market, and a further approximation of VAT rates is crucial in this respect. Consequently, there is no guarantee that VAT zero-rating which some Member States can currently apply according to the transitional arrangements of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )) will be continued. In the preparation of the new VAT system, however, the cultural and educational implications of the taxation system will certainly be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0911/96 by Christof Tannert (PSE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)

Subject: Community programmes for Berlin in 1995 and 1996

1. What sums were granted in Community aid to the German 'Land' of Berlin in 1995 and 1996?

2. What sums have been taken up so far?

3. To which measures and programmes do

a) the sums allocated

b) the sums taken up

apply?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (24 July 1996)

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-0983/96 by Luigi Moretti (ELDR) to the Council (29 April 1996)

Subject: Accession by the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights

As the EU is responsible, in line with the general principles of Community law, for safeguarding respect for human rights; as, moreover, the Member States and institutions of the EU have emphasised on many occasions the importance of upholding human rights, and, finally, in view of the Court of Justice's opinion that accession by the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights would be incompatible with the EC Treaty, what initiatives does the Council intend to take, within the bounds of Article 235, to give the EU powers to legislate or conclude international agreements in that field?

Reply (7 August 1996)

As the Honourable Member himself states, the Court of Justice, by its Opinion 2/94 delivered on 28 March 1996, concluded that the European Community was not competent to accede, given the current state of Community law, to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950.

It is up to the Intergovernmental Conference to propose, if necessary, any amendment to the Treaties which might make the initiatives alluded to by the Honourable Member in his question possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1396/96 by Erhard Meier (PSE) to the Commission (24 May 1996)

Subject: LEADER II programme for Styria, Austria

In the Austrian federal province of Styria there are five LEADER II projects, including the LEADER II 'Sölktäler' project. According to my information the LEADER II projects were submitted to Brussels in April 1995.

Representatives of the regions concerned, project leaders, interested parties and local mayors repeatedly ask me why project approval and financial support have still not been implemented from Brussels. I therefore ask:

1. Why has no decision on LEADER II projects and supporting arrangements as yet been adopted?

2. When can a decision to support these projects be expected?

3. Do the reasons for the absence of an EU decision lie with unsatisfactory Austrian part-projects (as, for example, in Tyrol province)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1996)

Austria's operational programmes for the Community Leader II initiative were presented to the Commission on 18 July 1995.

1. As a result of the Commission's appraisal of the programmes, a number of changes, additions and improvements have been made.

2. So far only two of the Länder, Styria and Tyrol, have recently sent full, detailed answers to the Commission's questions, and it is expected that these two operational programmes will shortly be approved.

3. The decisions are taken for each Land's programme separately, rather than for Austria as a whole, so the delay in approving the Leader II operational programme for Styria is purely due to the various extensions and adjustments which proved to be necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1190/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: 1997 - Year Against Racism

What groups representing the black and migrant communities of Europe were involved in the planning stages of the 1997 Year Against Racism?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 June 1996)

The European year against racism is still in its planning stages. In this context, the Commission has been deepening its dialogue with the Migrants' forum, and will continue to do so. Opportunities to broaden the basis of such dialogue by including further organisations are being considered. Furthermore, the Commission is regularly in contact with organisations of the migrant and ethnic minority communities in context of the applications for co-financing for projects to be run by such organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Sale of a church in occupied Cyprus

According to a report in an English-language Turkish-Cypriot newspaper, the Turkish Cypriot occupation authorities are selling the church of the Virgin of Chrysotrimythiotissa in the occupied sector of Cyprus.

Bearing in mind European sensitivity to matters involving the protection of cultural heritage, but also the lack of a concerted, immediate and firm response from the European Union to successive Turkish provocations at all levels, what immediate steps will the Commission take to bring the Turkish army of occupation and the illegal Turkish-Cypriot authorities to heel and stop them plundering the cultural wealth of the island?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1413/96 and E-1432/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The Commission does not have concrete information on the matters raised by the Honourable Member.

It recalls that Community policy concerning the Cypriot question was reaffirmed during the last Association Council with Cyprus. Negotiations for Cyprus' accession to the Union will begin, on the basis of a Commission proposal, six months after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference and taking its results into account. The Community further expressed its support for a comprehensive settlement of the Cypriot question in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, based on the concept of a bi-communal and bi-zonal Cypriot federation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1172/96 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: The packaging directive

Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. )) on packaging and packaging waste must be implemented by 30 June 1996. Its purpose is to establish an internal market guaranteeing the free movement of packaging (so that producers, shops and consumers have the greatest possible choice of packaging) and to ensure that Member States promote environmentally sound systems for managing packaging and packaging waste.

1. Has the Commission been notified of how the Danish authorities intend to implement the Directive, in particular as regards a possible lifting of the Danish ban on cans as packaging for beer and soft drinks?

2. What information has it received from the Danish authorities demonstrating the environmental impact of the Danish ban on cans and what criteria will it impose in this connection as regards methods of assessing the environmental impact of various types of packaging (standards for life-cycle assessment)?

3. Would a decision by the Danish authorities' to maintain a ban on a particular type of packaging be incompatible with the aims of the Directive, the purpose of which is to remove national exceptions in the field of packaging where such special rules are not justified by environmental considerations?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1996)

Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste has to be transposed into national law by 30 June 1996.

The Commission has maintained contacts with the Danish authorities on the implementation of the Directive, but so far Denmark has notified to the Commission neither the draft of measures that it intends to adopt, nor existing laws adopted within its scope.

The Directive set up a notification system which allows the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to analyze measures to be adopted and to identify any problems of conformity with Community legislation before they enter into force.

Until 30 June 1996 national legislation continues to be assessed on the basis of the EC Treaty. Afterwards it has to be compatible with the Directive.

Danish authorities have not communicated to the Commission any information concerning the environmental impact of the Danish ban on cans. It is impossible at this stage to anticipate the Commission's position in case the ban is maintained.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1431/96 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (29 May 1996)

Subject: Selling of financial services

In the debate on distance selling in December 1996 the Commission undertook to come forward with a communication and action plan by February 1996. I understand this week the Commission is at last due to agree not a communication but a Green Paper and that this Green Paper does not contain an action plan. Does this mean that the Commission does not feel it is necessary to take action in this area? If not, why not?

Does the Commission think that in the light of this Green Paper, the Conciliation Committee which is to be convened on the distance selling directive should not review the possible application of this directive to financial services?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1996)

On 22 May 1996, the Commission adopted a green paper entitled 'Financial services: meeting consumers' expectations' ((COM(96) 209 final. )) which covers the issue of consumer policy in the financial services sector, including the distance selling of financial services. The green paper has been communicated to the Parliament, the Council, the Economic and social committee and to the European monetary institute.

In Part III of the green paper, the Commission explains that the position of consumers with regard to the development of distance selling should be examined. This does not mean that action, including the possibility of binding legislation, is ruled out. The Commission is committed to ensuring that consumers of financial services enjoy, when buying at a distance, a level of protection which is equivalent to that they receive when purchasing other goods and services.

The Commission plans to organise a hearing of interested parties in autumn 1996. The results of the consultation process and of the hearing will constitute the basis on which the Commission will assess whether it is necessary to take further initiatives, including legislative action.

During the Parliament second reading vote in December 1995 ((OJ C 17, 22.1.1996. )) on the proposal for a directive on distance selling, the various amendments tabled by the Parliament on the inclusion of financial services within the scope of the directive did not receive the necessary qualified majority. It seems to the Commission that this subject cannot be discussed, legally speaking, during the conciliation procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1615/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Implementation of the 20:20 proposal in Latin America

How far has the Commission sought to implement the 20:20 proposal in relation to its development aid to Latin America, as discussed at the UN Social Summit in Copenhagen and endorsed by the Interparliamentary Conference between the European and Latin American Parliaments?

Could the Commission indicate the practical result of these efforts and identify which further initiatives in this respect are planned during the next two years?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member about the value as a development target of the 20/20 clause, whereby donor countries of the advanced industrialized world are called on to devote 20% of their aid to social projects and recipient countries to assign 20% of their domestic budget to the same sector.

We would point out that, as is stated in Article 46 of the Final Act of the Twenty-First EC-Latin America Interplarliamentary Conference, the clause was not in fact approved by participants at the Copenhagen Summit, and that while it is undoubtedly of relevance to the Community it is targeted primarily at the Member States.

The proportion of EC aid to Latin America devoted to the social sector as defined at the Copenhagen Summit far exceeds 20% and is thus fully in keeping with the Summit's recommendations.

Much of the tenor of those recommendations is incorporated in the Commission communication to the Council and Parliament entitled 'The European Union and Latin America: the present situation and prospects for closer partnership 1996-2000', which sets out general cooperation guidelines for the next five years.

For details of results of operations implemented by the Commission in this field, we would refer the Honourable Member to the reports and minutes communicated to Parliament under Article 30 of the Final Act referred to above, evaluation reports and the annual report of the Latin America directorate, which we will be pleased to send the Honourable Member at his request.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: Cuts in Community funding

An article in the reputed Greek periodical 'Oikonomikos Tachydromos' states that consideration is being given to a proposal to cut EU funds earmarked for the Trans-European Networks (TENs), with a view to easing the burden on the Community budget and meeting the increased cost of measures to combat 'mad cow disease'.

Will the Commission state:

1. Is this its intention?

2. If so, what arrangements will there be to safeguard the projects concerning Greece, a country which is particularly remote?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The appropriations for agricultural expenditure and for the trans-European transport networks come under two different headings (Heading 1 - Common agricultural policy, and Heading 3 - Internal policies) in the financial perspective annexed to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 29 October 1993 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure.

Since each heading is entirely separate from the others, a budget item under one heading cannot be financed with appropriations covered by another heading. So unless the financial perspective is revised, appropriations cannot be transferred from one heading to another nor offset against each other.

Accordingly, it is out of the question for the Commission to truncate Community appropriations for the trans-European networks in order to meet increased expenditure entailed by the eradication of mad-cow disease. On the contrary, in its proposal for the revision of the financial perspective ((SEC(96) 492. )) presented at the end of March 1996, the Commission requested an increase of ECU 1 000 million for the period 1997-99 to boost the current allocation for the trans-European transport networks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1312/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: NGO cooperation in the field of disability

What proportion in number, amounts and percentage of NGO cooperation in the field of disability is devoted to funding of representative organizations of disabled people (i.e. with management boards of at least 51% disabled people or parents of disabled children)? What criteria are used to determine such grants and are these available to Parliament? Will the Commission develop criteria to ensure at least 75% of NGO cooperation monies goes towards such representative organizations next year?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)

The Commission regrets that it does not have the information requested or the proportion of funding devoted to representative organisations of disabled people, as defined by the Honourable Member. Further information in this regard could be obtained by contacting the secretariat of the European disability forum at 79 avenue Cortenberg, 1049 Brussels. The Commission is certainly concerned with the need to ensure that organisations of disabled people are properly represented with regard to funding allocated for cooperation with non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The criteria used for making funding available in the context of NGO cooperation within the HELIOS II programme are set out in the general rules on cofinancing. A copy of these rules is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The Commission is currently preparing a communication which will set out its overall strategy in the field of disability. In this context the Commission is examining the means of encouraging cooperation with non-governmental organisations of the disabled.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1611/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Public support in the EU for aid and development

Is the Commission aware of the relative support of public opinion in the various Member States towards the provision of development aid to less developed countries, and how this is changing over time?

What is the relative support for bilateral aid by the Member States vis-à-vis multilateral aid provided by the EU itself?

Is the Commission aware of similar public opinion survey findings concerning the objectives of development policy?

Does the Commission plan any initiatives in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The Eurobarometer results on the way Europeans perceived developing countries in 1995 showed that 77.4% of Europeans are in favour of development aid. This represents a 3.7 points decline of the concern European citizens attach to aid to developing countries between 1991 and 1995. The Commission presented the results of this public opinion survey at a press conference on 21 May 1996. More detailed results concerning individual Member States are available and could be forwarded to the Honourable Member on request.

Survey results in the United Kingdom showed, after a peak of 85% of support in 1991 for British bilateral aid, results in 1992 with 75% of support, and public support trends for development aid tending to come closer to those in years 1988 and 1989, respectively set at 71 and 72%. These are the only non-Commission results of which the Commission is aware in Member States.

The same Eurobarometer survey confirms that development aid is perceived as a prime area for Community involvement. Indeed, when presented with a list of ten proposals for policy actions and asked whether it was preferable that decisions on this issue are made together by the Member States acting together, European citizens rank development aid fourth out of the ten priority areas proposed. Finally, the same study shows that the Community action in the field of development suffers from low visibility.

In order to remedy this situation, the Commission has launched recently an information plan on Community cooperation for development. This plan aims to show Europeans how their own daily problems such as unemployment, environment, health, security are closely linked with the insufficient level of development of a major part in our planet. Indeed it is clear that not only the environmental, but also the social, cultural and political sustainability of development affects the well-being of people and the functioning of the complex, interdependent global system now emerging. It explains also the vital interests of the donor community, namely humanitarian, enlightened self-interest. Finally industrial countries benefit from expanded markets and the solidarity of all peoples.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1603/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Disability-friendly cities and localities

Could the Commission indicate what discussions have taken place with DG XVI concerning this initiative, following the Barcelona Declaration last year and the recent meeting in Bologna, and whether any European funding is proposed under Article 10 of URBAN or any other programme?

Could the Commission further confirm that no funding is proposed for this initiative by DG V, especially under Item B4-3102, as this would be against the principle of mainstreaming disability programmes?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (31 July 1996)

The Commission is currently considering the most appropriate way of giving a Community added value to the initiatives taken by towns and cities to assist disabled people.

It has not yet drawn up a proposal.