ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Council (7 November 1996)

Subject: Use of the Spanish letter 'ñ'

The letter 'ñ' is one of the letters which make up the alphabet of the Spanish language, one of the official languages of the European Union.

All too often, it is forgotten in documents and texts circulated by non-Spanish bodies and institutions in the European Union that 'ñ' is a letter in its own right and should be used as such.

The issue is even more serious when it involves the recognition of academic qualifications by non-Spanish universities and institutions and affects citizens whose names include the letter 'ñ'.

Will the Council take steps to prevent the Spanish letter 'ñ' from being forgotten?

Answer (16 May 1997)

Since the accession of Spain to the Community the Spanish authorities have hitherto never put before the Council the matter referred to by the Honourable Member.

The General Secretariat of the Council takes care to ensure that all the official languages of the Community are placed on an equal footing which, in practice, also means that original spellings are adhered to.

As regards the issuing and recognition of academic qualifications, it is clear that the proper application of the various Community directives on the recognition of qualifications, diplomas and certificates presupposes the exact identification of the holders of such qualifications and that this implies the use in such documents of the original alphabetical letters, such as the "ñ¨, which appear in their names.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3605/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B5-322: Employment and growth for Europe

With reference to the financial year 1995 and budget heading B5-322: Employment and growth for Europe,

1. can the Commission say whether subsidies were granted to associations, trade unions or employers' bodies?

2. If they were, can the Commission provide a breakdown of the exact amount of the subsidy for each association, trade union, body and activity?

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

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

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3609/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B5-331: Action to encourage transfrontier provision of equity capital for small and medium-sized enterprises

With reference to the financial year 1995 and budget heading B5-331: Action to encourage transfrontier provision of equity capital for small and medium-sized enterprises,

1. can the Commission say whether subsidies were granted to associations, trade unions or employers' bodies?

2. If they were, can the Commission provide a breakdown of the exact amount of the subsidy for each association, trade union, body and activity?

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

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

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3612/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B4-3101: Subsidy to the European Environment Agency

With reference to the financial year 1995 and budget heading B4-3101: Subsidy to the European Environment Agency,

1. can the Commission say whether the European Environment Agency granted subsidies to outside bodies?

2. If it did, can the Commission list the activities and assocations which received a subsidy and indicate the level of subsidy in each case?

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

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

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: The Aviano air-base - the need for an environmental impact assessment

Near the village of Aviano (PN) there is a military air-base used by the United States, and the Pentagon has decided to finance work to double the size of the existing facilities.

Without entering into the political merits of the question, it has to be admitted that there are serious environmental problems, such as local planning constraints and noise pollution. Whilst historic and political agreements between the United States and Italy allow the former to use the land on which the air base is situated, it is hard to understand why it is possible to circumvent the requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment concerning the doubling the size of the base, in accordance with Community parameters, not least because the effects go beyond the boundaries of the base itself.

Is the Commission aware of the facts outlined above and does it consider it necessary or at least appropriate to carry out an environmental impact assessment?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 20 January 1997 ((OJ C 83, 14.3.1997. )), the Commission can inform the Honourable Member of the following.

The Commission has asked the Italian authorities for information on the application of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) in respect of the plan to double the size of the existing facilities on the Aviano (PN) military air base.

No reply has yet been forthcoming. A reminder will be sent.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0126/97 by Sylviane Ainardi (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 January 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies allocated to the Provence Côte d'Azur region in 1994 and 1995

What were the figures for the Community appropriations allocated to the Provence Côte d'Azur region under the following headings:

- ERDF

- EAGGF - Guidance

- ESF

- research programmes

- programmes in the energy sector

- programmes concerning the environment

- other programmes concerning human resources, education, training and youth?

Can the Commission state who were the beneficiaries of these appropriations?

Joint supplementary answer to Written Questions E-0122/97, E-0123/97, E-0124/97, E-0125/97 and E-0126/97 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1997)

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 P-1154/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Players' licences

If a player who is an EU or EEA citizen gives notice to terminate his contract with a club in an EU or EEA country, may the club then retain his licence if they cannot agree on the period of notice or the amount of compensation?

Or should the club release the licence so that the player may start playing for another club, leaving itself the option of bringing civil proceedings against the player?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1997)

The information given by the Honourable Member is not sufficient for the Commission to gauge accurately all the implications of the situation referred to in the question.

However, from a general point of view and without prejudice to the particular circumstances of a specific case, the Commission considers that freedom of movement for workers does not preclude legal action on the part of an employer seeking to protect his rights and interests in the event of breach of contract by a worker. In such circumstances, any legal measures taken by the employer, in order to comply with Article 48, may not constitute an unjustified or disproportionate obstacle to freedom of movement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/97 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 March 1997)

Subject: Issue of permanent residence permits in the Netherlands

On 7 February 1996, the Commission replied to my question E-3661/95 ((OJ C 122, 25.4.1996, p. 26. )) on Dutch regulations concerning the cost of residence permits issued to citizens of Member States; as of that date, the Dutch authorities had not yet changed the charge for issuing the document certifying that the individual concerned had obtained 'vergunning tot vestiging' (right of permanent residence), which continued to be GL 500. The Commission added that if necessary, it would take the requisite steps to resolve the situation.

The 'Federação da Comunidade Portuguesa na Holanda' has recently informed me that the situation has not yet been resolved.

I would therefore ask the Commission what approaches it has made and intends to make to the Dutch authorities with a view to solving the problem once and for all?

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

In line with its answer to written question No 3661/95, the Commission asked the Dutch authorities for their observations concerning the cost of issuing the document confirming that a Community national has obtained the 'vergunning tot vestiging' (right of permanent residence).

As the Commission is not satisfied with the Dutch authorities' reply to its letter, it will deliver a reasoned opinion to the Netherlands.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0594/97 by Leen van der Waal (I-EDN) to the Commission (25 February 1997)

Subject: Transporting 45-foot containers by road

In its opinion for the Dutch Minister of Transport and Waterways on trans-European intermodal goods transport the Dutch Council for Transport and Waterways says that not allowing 45-foot containers on the roads would have an adverse effect on the development of intermodal short-sea shipping.

1. Does the Commission share this view? If not, why not?

2. If it does share this view, is it prepared to submit proposals to the Council and Parliament so that transporting 45-foot containers by road will still be possible?

3. What other measures are currently being taken at European level to encourage the development of intermodal short-sea shipping?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (10 April 1997)

Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 (laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorized dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorized weights in international traffic ((OJ L 235, 17.9.1996. ))) sets two limits concerning the length of semi-trailers. The first stipulates that the maximum length between the kingpin and the rear of the semi-trailer is 12 metres. The second requires that the horizontal distance forward of the kingpin shall not exceed 2.04 metres. Furthermore the Directive explicitly states that for the purposes of the Directive, containers and swap bodies are included in the above maximum dimensions (and so may not circumvent the limits by overhanging the semi-trailer).

As a consequence it is correct to say that 'traditional' 45 foot containers will not meet the requirements of the Directive and so will not be permitted to be transported by road in the future. However, existing 45 foot containers will be permitted to be transported by road - where national legislation permits - until 31 December 2006.

Furthermore, the Commission is aware of a new design of 45 foot container that has truncated corners. This may enable it to meet the above-mentioned requirements and thus circulate by road throughout the Community under Directive 96/53/EC.

Given that the short-sea shipping sector thus appears to have found a way of having 45 foot containers that comply with the Directive when transported by road, the Commission considers that the Directive will have no negative impact on short-sea shipping, nor is there any necessity to consider amending the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0888/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Promotion and safety of regional and minority languages and cultures

Can the 1997 budget line established for the promotion and safety of regional and minority languages and cultures be used for the support of the Esperanto language, which its proponents maintain can play a role as a bridging language between peoples of different cultures in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

The Commission manages the budget line B3-1006 for action in favour of Community regional and minority languages and cultures. In accordance with the call for proposals 95/C 322/13 ((OJ C 322, 2.12.1995. )) support is given to languages that are autochthonous and traditionally spoken by part of the population of a Member State. This definition excludes both imigrants' languages and artificially created languages.

In this respect, Esperanto would not be considered eligible for Community support.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/97 by Giovanni Burtone (PPE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Violation of Article 48 of the TEU

Community Directive 82/76/EEC ((OJ L 43, 15.2.1982, p. 21. )) laid down rules governing the training of specialist doctors with a view to harmonizing professional standards and medical specializations throughout the Community. This directive was transposed by Italy by means of laws reforming the public health system and medical specialization establishments (Article 15(3), DGLS, 517/93 DGLS 257/91).

The Community legislation is intended to guarantee freedom of movement for Community specialists in medicine within the health services of the various Member States.

A series of legislative and administrative provisions issued by Italian Central Government (DL 478/96, L 4/97) and the Sicily Region (DA 17.10.1996 and related administrative regulations) have seriously infringed the Community legislation and the aforementioned harmonization principles.The Sicily Region has, on the basis of

an ambiguous (and illegal, even within the Italian system) act confirming previously existing derogation mechanisms, filled posts in the medical sector relating to prevention services which, under the terms of the Community directive, may be allocated solely to persons holding a specialist diploma obtained from educational establishments organized according to the standards laid down by the directive in the various Member States.

This entails an enormous waste of Community resources designed to finance specialist medical training (hygiene, paediatrics, etc.). It also represents a violation of the right of specialist doctors holding diplomas issued by European establishments in compliance with Community standards to fill medical posts in prevention services in the Sicily Region insofar as the Sicily Region has, by successive laws and administrative regulations, reserved all available posts in these medical services for doctors who do not hold the necessary Community title and specialization. This therefore constitutes a violation of the principle of freedom of movement for qualified Community doctors.

Does the Commission agree that in view of the above-mentioned legislation and administrative regulations issued by the Italian Government and the Sicily Region, infringement proceedings should be instituted against the Italian State, pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty, for violation of Directive 82/76/EEC and Article 48(2) of the Treaty through the issuing of state legislation (DL 478/96, L 4/97) and legislative and administrative provisions of the Sicily Region (DA 17.10.1996)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1997)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform him of its findings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 March 1997)

Subject: EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in France

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

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

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

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

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1050/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Manuela Frutos Gama (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Tobacco imports

What benefits does the Commission expect to be derived from its attempts to eliminate tobacco production in certain parts of Europe, only for this to be compensated for by tobacco imports from third countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

The Commission is fully aware of the social and economic importance of tobacco-growing in the producer regions. It therefore has no intention of proposing that aid for tobacco-growing be abolished in those regions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0659/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Use of ECVAM budget

Would the Commission confirm that the failure to organize a meeting of national competent authorities between 1994 and September 1996 was directly due to staffing and budgetary problems within the Commission? If so what if any steps have been taken by the Commission to redress this failure? In particular what budget and how many staff posts (as full time equivalents) are specifically allocated by the Commission for (a) meetings of national competent authorities and (b) to monitor implementation and compliance with Directive86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. ))? What proportion of the budget allocated for these purposes is not actually being spent at present on these specific purposes?

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

The Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the answers it gave to her Written Questions E-713/96 ((OJ C 183, 24. 6.1996. )) and E-1500/96 ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996. )).

The Commission can confirm that two competent authority meetings for Directive 86/609/EEC for the protection of laboratory animals have been envisaged for 1997 in addition to a working group meeting which already took place in February 1997.

Concerning the budget, the Commission would like to draw attention to two points. Firstly, the reference to the budget of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM) in the subject heading is not relevant as regards the competent authority meetings organized by the Commission for Directive 86/609. Secondly, the Commission has a global budget for meetings in general and thus no specific allocations are made for individual competent authority or any other committee meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0855/97 by Klaus Hänsch (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Galactosaemia - a rare disease

Galactosaemia - lactose intolerance - is a very rare syndrome into which virtually no research has been carried out. On the basis of findings to date, sufferers may only ever consume lactose-free foodstuffs, otherwise they run the risk of very severe damage to their eyes, brain and internal organs.

It is therefore crucial that they know for definite whether foodstuffs contain lactose. At present, few foodstuffs are labelled up to provide this vital information.

1. Is the Commission already examining the particular risks associated with galactosaemia?

2. Is it prepared to propose rules requiring foodstuffs containing lactose to be labelled as such?

3. Is it prepared to use EU resources to fund research into galactosaemia and the development of technical aids for identifying dangerous substances in foodstuffs?

4. What will it do to improve the international exchange of experience between doctors and scientists on rare diseases such as galactosaemia and to make the results thereof public?

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

The Commission is well aware of the metabolic disease of galactosaemia and the serious problems caused to those affected.

1 and 4. There are no Community actions at present on galactosaemia, or indeed on other rare diseases, but the Commission has included the latter in the list of priorities for programmes in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health ((COM(93) 559. )). Proposals for such a programme, as well as on the issue of medicinal products for rare diseases, are under preparation.

2. The Commission is actively investigating the need to change the Community rules for labelling foodstuffs with a view to ensuring that consumers are properly informed about the presence of ingredients which trigger allergy or intolerance, including ingredients containing galactose.

At the Commission's request, the Scientific Committee for Food produced a report on food allergies and intolerance, in which the problem of galactosaemia is raised. The conclusions of this report are currently being discussed with the Member States. Moreover, discussions on the labelling of foods which may cause hypersensitivity are also taking place at international level in the context of the Codex Alimentarius.

3. No research project on galactosaemia is at present being funded by the Commission in connection with the Biomed research programme in the field of biomedicine and health. However, the Biomed work programme includes research into rare diseases, and galactosaemia belongs to this category; the Commission would look favourably on research projects concerning galactosaemia if they satisfy the required criteria of scientific excellence, innovation and a European dimension.