ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0386/96 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council (14 February 1996)

Subject: Lack of respect by the Belgian police for the European Union 'laissez-passer' and European Parliament credentials

Is the Council aware that the Belgian police show no respect for the European Union 'laissez-passer' and European Parliament credentials which identify us as MEPs?

Does it realize that they ignore the request from the President of the European Parliament to allow the bearer of the laissez-passer to pass freely and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary?

Why do they only recognize cards issued by the Belgian authorities and not those issued by the Union authorities? How can a Belgian police officer, with the assistance of two fellow-officers, rudely detain a Member of the European Parliament who identifies herself as such on the basis of 'laissez-passer' No. A6931 and the EP security pass, prevent her from going about her business and detain her for around 20 minutes because they do not consider the documents to be valid?

Why did the Belgian police refuse to identify themselves for more than 10 minutes?

Does the Council consider that this incident, which occurred at the passenger exit of Brussels Airport on Saturday, 3 February at 1.30 p.m., calls for some explanation from the Belgian authorities?

Reply (20 May 1996)

The action raised by the Honourable Member is a matter for the Belgian authorities, who have been informed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/96 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Structural Funds

Seventy-four Community initiative programmes were adopted between 15 November and 15 December 1995. Why has the Spanish State only approved one Community programme, which is to receive ECU 216.9 m from the Structural Funds, when other Member States have opted for a wider distribution of Community funds among various programmes?

What is the purpose of this programme adopted for the Canaries, which is part of the Community initiative Regis II?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1996)

The procedures for implementing Community initiatives vary from one Member State to another. The same initiative can give rise to a single Commission decision for certain Member States and several decisions for others. In Spain's case, each initiative results in a single decision, except for Interreg and Leader. It is not the number of programmes adopted which is particularly significant but rather the amounts approved and to be approved in each Member State. Hence at the end of 1995, 80.5% of the total allocation of Community initiatives for Spain had already been approved. Decisions are still to be taken on the Interreg-France, Interreg-Morocco, Rechar, Resider, Konver and SME programmes.

The specific objectives of the Community initiative programme Regis II-Canaries, like those of the Urban and SME initiatives to be implemented in the Canary Islands, supplement those in the Community framework of support for Spain, Objective No 1 1994-99. The aim is to speed up the pace at which the economy of the Canary Islands is adapted and incorporated in the internal market. This involves:

- diversifying economic activities in order to develop the productive sectors;

- making the technological advances needed to diversify economic activities;

- correcting geographical and economic imbalances by supporting the development of a type of tourism compatible with protection of the environment and the cultural heritage;

- consolidating links with the rest of the Community by encouraging cooperation between the most remote regions and with neighbouring non-member countries;

- achieving fuller integration in both internal and external markets;

- supporting vocational training and employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1006/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Participation by 'Thames Gateway' region in EU regional projects

What discussions has and will the Commission undertake with the British Government and with representatives of local authorities and social partners regarding the participation of the Thames Gateway sub-region (formerly East Thames Corridor) in European Union regional programmes?

Does the Commission accept that this project represents 'the largest regeneration project in Europe' and what initiatives does it plan in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0479/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Rules on importing alcoholic beverages into Sweden

According to newspaper reports (Sydsvenska Dagbladet of 3 February 1996) the Commission considers that Sweden's derogation regarding the quantities of alcohol which may be imported from other EU Member States should cease as early as 31 December 1996. This would mean that 10 litres of spirits, 90 litres of wine and 119 litres of beer could be freely imported, as against the present limits of 1 litre of spirits, 5 litres of wine and 15 litres of beer. According to the Swedish authorities there was no time-limit to the Swedish derogation, which was on the grounds of public health.

Is it true that the Commission intends to require Sweden to remove its restrictions on alcohol imports with effect from 31 December 1996? If so, on what provision of Community law is this decision based, and how is it possible thus to set aside the derogation referred to by the Swedish authorities? Is there or is there not a legally valid derogation granted to Sweden in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 May 1996)

A temporary derogation in the Treaty of Accession permits Sweden to tax alcoholic drinks (exceeding the 1 litre, 5 litre and 15 litre limits cited by the Honourable Member) and tobacco products ((OJ C 241, 29.8.1994. )) although they are imported by private citizens for their own purposes.

The derogation was granted 'on the conditions stipulated in Article 26 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC' (which granted a similar derogation to Denmark) ((OJ L 76, 23.3.1992. )). That Article permits Denmark to tax private imports by travellers 'until 31 December 1996 and subject to a review mechanism similar to that laid down in Article 28(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )).'

The Commission is, however, aware that the Swedish government is concerned that difficulties would be caused by the abrupt ending of the derogation while rates of excise duty on these products continue to vary widely from Member State to Member State. It is therefore currently examining the situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0564/96 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Educational salary system which discriminates against women returners

The salaries of employees in the Dutch education system are based on the number of years service, with a teacher receiving an automatic salary increase each year. When a teacher who has not worked for a number of years returns to work the new salary is the same as the last salary earned. This means that women who stop work for a couple of years to look after children and then wish to return to the classroom are at a financial disadvantage by comparison with their colleagues who have continued to work because of these salary arrangements. The committee for equal treatment in the Netherlands considers this system to be unjustified, especially as the care of children is deemed to be experience which is not relevant to education.

1. Does the Commission consider it justified that temporary cessation of work will always mean a lower salary?

2. Does it consider that only paid work experience should determine salary levels?

3. Does it consider that this salary system discriminates (indirectly) against women?

4. If so, does it conflict with Article 119 of the Treaty? What action does the Commission intend to take?

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

Reorganisation of working time is one of the priorities defined by the European Council at Essen. In this context the emphasis is on policies designed to encourage parental leave and other forms of career breaks. These policies are addressed both to men and women and focus on two aspects, viz. the assurance of being able to return to the previous job under the same conditions as before the career break and continued rights to social protection.

The principle of equal pay for equal work for women and men is enshrined in Article 119 of the EC Treaty. Moreover, Directive 75/117/EEC ((OJ No L 45, 19.2.1975. )) notably fleshed out the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. The European Court of Justice has developed extensive case law interpreting this concept.

To assess the equal value to be attributed to a job it is possible to bring proceedings at national level and the Member State concerned is responsible for empowering an authority to decide on the issue of equal value ((Case 6/81, Commission v. the United Kingdom, ECR 1982, p. 2601. )).

However, the only way to make comparisons in the event of de facto discrimination coming within the remit of Article 119 is through concrete assessment of the services actually provided, in the context of a given establishment or service, by workers of different sex ((Case 129/79, McCarthy Ltd. v. Wendy Smith, ECR 1980, p. 1289. )).

Hence, no comparison can be made between parents who have interrupted their career to look after their children and workers who continue to work.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Genetically modified organisms

Is the Commission satisfied that all Member States are fully applying the safety, control and approval procedures for genetically modified organisms (GMO) as set out in Directive 90/219/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 1. ))?

Does the Commission maintain a list of all GMOs released into the environment?

Will the Commission monitor the long-term effects of GMOs on the environment?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1996)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that most Member States have implemented Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. However, infringement proceedings against those Member States which have not completely transposed the Directive are in progress. Infringement proceedings for discrepancies in the national law are also in progress.

Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms ((OJ No L 117, 8.5.1990. )) foresees a circulation procedure for all notifications on field releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the evironment carried out within the Community. The Commission, therefore, is aware and has a record of all notifications in a regularly updated list which is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat General of the Parliament. At present about 580 releases, including 30 different species of genetically modified organisms, have been notified.

The enforcement of the regulations on modern biotechnology as well as the monitoring of the long term effects of genetically modified organisms on the environment is carried out by Member States. The results of this monitoring and the possible consequences are exchanged between Member States and the Commission. Furthermore they will be incorporated in the report of the Commission under Article 22(3) of Directive 90/220/EEC.

The Commission is aware that some Member States are supporting studies on monitoring. Additionally the Commission itself is funding studies in this field within its Biotechnology research programme. Furthermore, the Commission has supported since 1987, through the Research and technological development programmes on biotechnology, research projects dealing with the methodology of monitoring GMOs in given ecosystems, as well as research projects on the mechanisms of gene flow, in order to gain knowledge of the ecological implications of releasing GMOs into the environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/96 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission (17 April 1996)

Subject: Involvement of politicians in the illegal trade in timber in Cambodia and Thailand

Is the Commission aware of reports ((The Times, 1 March 1996. )) asserting that politicians in Bangkok and Phnom Penh are involved in the authorization of logging activities by foreign enterprises to such an extent that virtually all valuable tropical timber in Cambodia (a large proportion of which is still unfelled) is already sold?

Is the Commission also aware of the fact that the authorization of such logging is not the result of a democratic decision-making process but rather of extra-parliamentary procedures on the basis of decisions taken by individual politicians who themselves obtain large financial benefits from such decisions?

In view of the high level of European Union development aid to Cambodia (nearly US$ 93 million),

1. Has the Commission investigated the reports of illegal logging further or is it still in the process of doing so?

2. In the event that such an investigation were to confirm these reports, would the Commission be prepared to remind the governments of Cambodia and Thailand of their responsibilities and to urge them to put a stop to these illegal activities, if necessary on pain of a reduction in financial aid?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1996)

The Commission is aware of the recent report by Global witness on illegal logging in Cambodia. The alleged involvement of Thai companies in illegal logging in Cambodia has been touched on before by the Commission.

The Commission has contacted the governments concerned and received the assurance that they were not involved in any kind of illegal activities. The Commission will continue to express its concern, and is prepared to raise this issue again in the course of normal exchanges with these governments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0447/96 by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Public access to documents

In May 1995 the Swedish newspaper Journalisten asked the Council for 20 documents concerning Europol, but was given access to only two, while the Swedish authorities handed over 18.

Does the Commission consider this to be compatible with the basic principle of the EU that the public should have the greatest possible access to documents of the EU institutions?

What steps can the Commission envisage to ensure greater transparency to apply to an equal degree within both the EU institutions and the national administrations?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1996)

The Commission attaches utmost importance to transparency, as this is something which brings Europe closer to the people.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, on 8 February 1994, it adopted a decision on access to its documents. ((OJ No L 46, 18.2 1994. )) This decision which applies a common code of conduct agreed by the Commission and the Council on 6 December 1993, lays down the principle that the public has the widest possible access to internal Commission documents except where disclosure could jeopardize public or private interests or the confidentiality of its proceedings.

With regard to access to Council documents and more particularly to minutes of its meetings, it should be emphasized that, on 2 October 1995, the Council adopted a code of conduct on public access to the minutes and statements in the minutes of the Council acting as legislator. Naturally the Commission welcomed these new measures which ensure greater transparency of its work.

For the future, the Commission considers it indispensable to develop the current policy of openness on the basis of the code of conduct, which provides for the policy to be reviewed in the coming weeks after two years' experience. At this juncture, it does not consider it appropriate to submit a proposal for legislation to apply to all Community institutions and the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Highly enriched uranium from Russia for German research reactor

In its answer to my Question 2919/95 ((OJ C 51, 21.2.1996, p. 58. )) on possible uranium supplies from the former Soviet Union to the Community (in particular to Germany for the Garching research reactor) the Commission said literally: 'The operators negotiate their own supply contracts and submit them before conclusion to the Agency.' Under Article 52 of the Euratom Treaty the Supply Agency has the exclusive right to conclude contracts relating to the supply of fissile materials. The Commission went on to state: 'The Agency has not made an offer of supplies to the Garching reactor.'

Inquiries by the 'New Scientist' magazine have now revealed, however, that uranium from scrapped Russian rockets is to be processed into fuel rods in British and French installations and then used in the Garching research reactor. The negotiations for this deal were conducted by the Euratom agency.

1. Has the Euratom agency - contrary to the answer to my question - in fact negotiated with the Russian authorities over the supply of nuclear material?

2. Precisely what materials are involved in this deal and by whom are they to be supplied, when and to whom?

3. Is the Commission aware that the Garching reactor could simply be operated with low-enriched uranium? If so, why is it still pushing the purchase of bomb material and what arrangements has it made in this connection with the American authorities?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)

1-2. The Commission is in the process of preparing contacts with the Russian authorities with a view to establishing a framework for the supply of highly enriched uranium to research reactors in the Community in compliance with the Euratom Treaty. The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed of any further developments. Any supply contracts will, as usual, be negotiated directly by the owners of the reactors and the relevant Russian authorities. They will then be submitted to the Commission, which will check for compliance with the Euratom Treaty, secondary legislation and any other regulations which may apply.

3. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Commission has no power to stipulate how a reactor should be run or to force it to use, or not to use, a particular type of fuel.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0718/96 by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Involvement of Turkey in the distribution and production of drugs

According to the State Department's annual report on international drugs control published on 1 March 1995, Turkey is a focal point for the distribution of drugs from south-west Asia to Europe and also produces or processes large quantities of drugs intended mainly for European markets.

1. What information does the Commission have concerning the references to Turkey in the State Department's report?

2. What steps has it taken and what steps does it intend to take in future to ensure that this country, which is associated with the European Union, introduces stricter controls on drugs distribution and immediately ends the production of all types of drugs, apart from those used for medical purposes?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)

The Commission is concerned about the drug problem in Turkey and accordingly is aware of the annual report on international drug control published in March 1995 by the US State Department which reviews the situation in over a hundred countries (including several Member States) in relation to this matter.

Under budget heading B7-5080 - Campaign against drug abuse, in 1995 the Commission made an ECU 760 000 grant to the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) as a contribution to that body's programme of action, set up jointly with the Turkish authorities, to campaign against drugs in Turkey. Under the contract between the Commission and the UNDCP, which took effect in January 1996, the latter undertakes to take action chiefly covering four fields, including the campaign against drug trafficking, preventive action, care for addicts and control of supply. The programme will be implemented over a three-year period.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0966/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Regionalization of Objective 3 funds

Is the Commission aware of discussions in the UK to end allocation by sector of Objective 3 funds and instead to have open competition for funds at regional level?

What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the women's training sector will continue to receive funds at a national level via the Women's Training Network?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1996)

The background to current discussions to end the allocation of objective 3 resources by sector in the United Kingdom is the submission to the Commission by the United Kingdom authorities of their plan for objective 3 for 1997-1999. This plan forms the basis of the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the Commission upon the new single programming document (SPD) setting out the strategy, priorities and proposed implementation arrangements for the European social fund under objective 3 in the United Kingdom for the coming three years.

The plan submitted by the United Kingdom authorities on 7th February 1996 does not make detailed proposals for the implementation of the SPD. Nevertheless, the Commission is aware that the Department for education and employment has recently undertaken a feasibility study on the regionalisation of the objective 3 programme and its delivery in the period 1997-1999. Furthermore, the Commission is aware that ministers in the United Kingdom have not yet agreed detailed proposals on regionalisation. The timetable and exact arrangments for regionalisation will be discussed between the Commission and the United Kingdom authorities in negotiations on the new SPD.

It is the aim of the Commission to afford the wider objective 3 partnership every opportunity to exchange views on the optimum policy content and implementation structure for the new SPD. To this end, an extended objective 3 monitoring committee meeting will take place in the United Kingdom on 22 May at which all non-government partners, including the Women's training network, will have the opportunity to feed in to the process of negotiations.

In addition, the Women's training network has already submitted a paper outlining its views on regionalisation to the Commission. The network's concern that they should continue the considerable progress already made in accessing ESF projects which are tailored to women's needs has been usefully expressed to the Commission. It is the firm intention of the Commission that the new SPD should facilitate an increase in the amount of provision of high quality equal opportunities than has been possible under the objective 3 SPD. This will be a central objective of the Commission when negotiations on the new SPD commence.