ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1486/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Measure 2.3 (Elaionas), Attica regional operational programme

Measure 2.3 comprises projects for the development and improvement of the area of Elaionas which are described as 'extremely important from a strategic point of view' for Athens.

According to the funding schedule, public expenditure on these projects should have amounted to ECU 2 536 million in 1994 and ECU 2 485 m in 1995.

1. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

2. What were the reasons for any delays?

3. Has the Environment Ministry issued a directive designating the locations for the various activities in the area, which is essential before the project can proceed?

4. What information can the Commission provide concerning the Industrial Development Bank's (ETVA) involvement in transferring industries in Elaionas to the industrial estate at Schistos in Western Attica?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 26 June 1996 ((OJ C 280 of 25.9.1996, p. 126. )) the Commission is now in a position to provide the following information.

In 1994 and 1995 there was no take up of funds for the Elaionas measure under the Attica regional operational programme. The study (praxi efarmogis) required before work can begin in the Elaionas area is currently under way.

A draft law on the procedure for setting up an industrial estate is being adopted and this will allow a decision to be taken on the transfer of industries in Elaionas to other areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3847/96 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (11 December 1996)

Subject: European cities and Community funding

Given that Italy's rate of utilization of Community resources is below the European average, resulting in a serious loss to the whole of Italy, will the Commission:

1. provide a detailed breakdown of the applications for and utilization of EU funds by individual administrations in the European capitals, specifying the types of programme and the level of finance received?

2. In the particular case of Rome, supply information on the use made to date of the funding released, given that there is only one known case of Community finance being requested and obtained (under the URBAN programme)?

3. If it is unable to supply this information, indicate instead the type of organization or department which might be able to answer these questions?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (20 December 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-2266/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Special public transport facilities for the disabled

In Italy a disabled youth was recently forced to get off a public bus because neither the driver nor the bus were authorized to transport disabled persons. By his actions, the driver may have safeguarded the legal liability of the Milan municipal transport company, but he also highlighted a situation that is intolerable.

In Milan, as in all Italian cities, there are no pubic transport facilities for the disabled.

Does the Commission consider that it should provide for a requirement that all European cities be equipped with transport facilities of this kind? In addition, could a deadline be set by which cities without such special facilities would be required to introduce them?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1996)

The response to the Honourable Member's question depends in part on whether the disabled person is a wheelchair user or not. The Italian law on social integration and the rights of disabled people of 17 February 1992 covers the right of equal treatment in all areas. Therefore the situation described by the Honourable Member should no longer exist.

However, if he is a wheelchair user, the difficulty could have arisen because of safety requirements for wheelchair users travelling in buses other than urban low floor buses. These requirements involve devices for anchoring wheelchairs securely in high floor buses and minibuses and in interurban buses and coaches - for the safety of both wheelchair users and other passengers - and the Italian ministerial decree of 18 July 1991 stipulates this requirement for all buses designed to transport disabled people.

The Commission is currently finalising a proposal for a directive on bus and coach construction standards. This will contain provisions providing for better accessibility for people of reduced mobility.

The safety aspects for wheelchair users in low floor buses have been very carefully researched in the Cost 322 action on the low floor bus system. The Commission regrets that Italy declined the opportunity to join this project, and points out that low floor buses are now operating successfully in all the participating countries of that project (Germany, Spain, France, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Hungary and Switzerland). Moreover, the findings of this project have been used, inter alia, as an input to drawing up the draft directive on bus construction for standards mentioned above.

However, although the Commission would urge the operators to equip themselves with low floor buses, this is clearly an area outside its direct competence. Whenever the directive enters into force, there will inevitably be a certain delay in low floor buses coming into service, as vehicle fleets are renewed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2909/96 by Tony Cunningham (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: EU-wide comparative study on causes of road death

It has come to my notice that there is very limited information concerning the extent and cause of road casualties in the European Union. In the interests of improving European transport safety, has the Commission any intention of conducting a European-wide comparative study on the frequency and types of road accidents involving vehicle drivers and pedestrians?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)

The Honourable Member is correct to say that statistical information on road accidents in the Community is limited. For this reason, the Commission submitted to the Council on 23 July 1993 a proposal for a decision aiming to establish a Community data base on road accident statistics. In its decision of 30 November 1993 (93/704/EEC) ((OJ L 329, 30.12.1993. )), the Council supported the creation of this data base, known as Care.

Currently, the Care project is in a development and validation phase and will be the subject of an interim report to be submitted to the Council in 1997. In the long term, Care will enable the Commission to undertake comparative studies on a Community level on road traffic injuries, which will improve knowledge of road safety in Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3180/96 by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission (18 November 1996)

Subject: Standing Committee on Employment

The Standing Committee on Employment is the only official forum for contact between the Commission, governments and the two sides of industry in this sphere.

Does the Commission believe that the Intergovernmental Conference on the reform of the European institutions will have an effect on the Standing Committee on Employment, which has existed since 1975?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

Various proposals are currently being discussed by the Intergovernmental Conference, with a view to incorporating into the Treaty measures to promote employment at Community level, in particular the creation of an employment committee. However, in this as in other matters, the Commission is unable to anticipate the outcome of the Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2343/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Council (27 August 1996)

Subject: Council decisions blocked by the UK Government's policy of non-cooperation

Can the Council list all the decisions blocked by the UK Government's policy of non-cooperation over the BSE crisis, indicating against each whether the proposal has been dropped or a provisional date when each is to be rediscussed by the Council?

Answer (13 December 1996)

As the Honourable Member has recalled, a number of texts, approval of which required unanimity, were not able to be approved at various Council sessions in the period between 28 May 1996 and 20 June 1996 solely because of reservations entered by the United Kingdom in relation with the latter's position on the BSE question.

One of the 36 texts in question - the joint action concerning action by the Union to support the electoral process in Bosnia and Herzegovina - was adopted by the Council (General Affairs) at its session on 10 June 1996. The other 35 were all adopted at Council sessions subsequent to the meeting of the European Council in Florence on 21/22 June 1996.

The Council is taking steps to have the list of the texts in question sent directly to the Honourable Member, together with an indication of the Council sessions at which they were adopted.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2922/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (8 November 1996)

Subject: Mount Athos

The monasteries of Mount Athos are monuments of Christianity and also cultural monuments both for Greece and the whole of the European Union.

The treasures contained in the monasteries on Mount Athos bear witness to the cultural heritage of Europe but also to the ecumenical nature of Orthodoxy. It is undoubtedly a priority of the Commission to protect these treasures.

Will the Commission explain in detail:

1. What funds have so far been made available by the EU in this connection, and for what purposes?

2. What funds have been earmarked for the years ahead in respect of which projects, who asked for them and who is responsible for monitoring these funds from the moment they are disbursed and thereafter?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

Aware of the religious, historical and cultural importance of Mount Athos, and on the basis of the Parliament's support and resolutions, the Commission has helped to finance, since 1987, the restoration works undertaken on the holy monasteries. The contribution for 1987 was 100 000 ECU and for 1989-1995 the contribution was 300 000 ECU per year (for 1996, the contribution is in the process of being committed).

These financial contributions have been attributed from the budgetary line B-3200 (destined to support programmes for the protection and preservation of Europe's rich and diverse cultural heritage) directly to the centre for the preservation of Mount Athos heritage (Ke.D.A.K.), which is under the direct supervision of the ministry for Macedonia and Thrace.

The financial support is given on the basis of the annual restoration programmes submitted to the Commission by Ke.D.A.K. (in full consultation and agreement of the holy community of Mount Athos), which - under the direct supervision of the ministry for Macedonia and Thrace - is responsible for the execution of the restoration works.

As financial commitments are based on the availability of credits, allocated each year for culture, within the framework of the Community's annual budget, the Commission is not in a position to inform the Honourable Member about either short or long term financial forecasts for the restoration of Mount Athos monasteries.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)

Subject: Food poisoning from eating veal in Italy

More than 60 people were poisoned in recent weeks in Campania, Italy, after eating calf's liver. Investigations by the Higher Institute of Health throughout September confirmed the presence in the liver of clenbuterol, a â2-antagonist substance, or one of the more dangerous substances illegally given to calves only a few months old to promote growth and thus make them more profitable.

Is the Commission aware of this and was it informed by the Italian minister for Health?

Does it endorse the behaviour of the Minister of Health who kept quiet about everything and does not seem to have investigated butcher's shops throughout Italy?

Is it aware that in 1995 alone Piedmont certified that 57% of the infected meat seized was veal?

What will it do to protect consumers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)

The Commission has been informed by the Italian Health Ministry of the matters referred to by the Honourable Member.

Details of the investigations by the Italian authorities will be given to the Commission later once the judicial inquiry now under way has been completed. The Commission has been kept informed, however, of a number of immediately applicable measures taken by the Italian authorities, namely the isolation of suspect animals and an epidemiological investigation on farms from which animals came which tested positive for residues; the suspension of Community approval for the slaughterhouse in question; the implementation of the procedure for withdrawing authorization for the marketing of Ventipulmin, a veterinary medicinal product containing clenbuterol intended for cattle and the tightening of the checks provided for as part of the national plan on monitoring for residues under Council Directive 86/469/EEC concerning the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues ((OJ L 275, 26.9.1986. )).

The Commission is not aware of the percentage of meat seized in Piedmont in 1995.

Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products ((OJ L 125, 23.5.1996. )) should make it possible for the Member States to ensure that consumers are given better protection, in particular where veterinary medicinal products are used unlawfully or banned substances are administered. In addition, the Commission reserves the right, where necessary, to carry out on-the-spot inspections to the extent that its limited staff resources allow.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3498/96 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (9 December 1996)

Subject: Court of Auditor's report 1995 - ESF in the UK

The Commission and the UK Government are criticized in the current Court of Auditor's report for reopening eight files for 1993 despite the fact that there was no legal base for this expenditure which breaches the financial regulations.

Can the Commission give exact details of the eight projects mentioned in the Court of Auditors' report? Did they involve national training schemes, local authorities, higher education or the voluntary sector, and will the Commission give the geographical location of the above projects?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1997)

As the Commission explained in the Court of auditors' report cited by the Honourable Member, the decision to use 1994-1999 credits allocated to the United Kingdom to cover eligible expenditure incurred in the previous programming period was based upon Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 ((OJ L 374, 31.12.1988 as amended OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) regarding coordination of the different structural funds between themselves and other instruments.

With regard to the exact details the Honourable Member is aware that the Commission does not track payments at the level of individual projects. Should information on specific project details be required, this information can be requested from the department for education and employment in London.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3419/96 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (27 November 1996)

Subject: Irregularities concerning the exportation of 'feta' cheese from Denmark

In its 1995 annual report, the European Court of Auditors noted a large number of irregularities and violations in respect of applications for refunds in connection with the exportation of 'feta' cheese from Denmark to third countries (Regulation EEC, 3665/87). In particular it noted that the controls carried out by the Danish authorities on the fat content of dry material and the water content of the product were inadequate and generally unsatisfactory, so that the exported 'feta' sometimes fails to meet the composition standards laid down in Regulation EEC 3846/87 ((OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1. )).

In the light of the above, can the Commission say what specific actions it intends to take to put an end to these violations and irregularities in future?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (8 January 1997)

As indicated in the Commission's reply included in the Court of Auditors' annual report concerning the financial year 1995 ((OJ C 340, 12.11.1996. )), any financial consequences of irregularities relating to the export of feta cheese from Denmark will be decided in the context of the clearance of accounts of the 1994 exercise.

The Commission would point out that a similar situation as described for Denmark should not occur again in the future for three reasons. Firstly, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 2721/95 ((OJ L 283, 25.11.1995. )), Regulation (EC) No 1854/96 ((OJ L 246, 27. 9.1996. )) establishing a list of reference methods to be applied for the analysis and quality evaluation of milk and milk products has been adopted. Using the new Regulation, which came into force on 1 October 1996, a reference method can be clearly identified in a specific analytical situation. Furthermore, guidelines for the interpretation of analytical results have recently been distributed which should ensure better data quality and fewer disputes relating to the evaluation of results. Secondly Regulation (EC) No 2123/96 ((OJ L 284, 6.11.1996 - See also Regulation (EC) No 2230/96; OJ L 305, 27.11.1996. )), amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds, specifies more precisely the requirements relating to product codes for cheeses including feta, particularly as regards maximum water content and minimum fat content. These requirements apply to licence applications submitted from 15 November 1996. Thirdly Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 ((OJ L 148, 21. 6.1996. )) which registers feta as a protected designation of origin (PDO) came into force on 21 June 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2769/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (17 October 1996)

Subject: IGC: reform of the third pillar and monopolistic right of initiative for the Commission

During the statement which he made to the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairs on 25 September 1996 Mr Gay Mitchell, Irish Foreign Minister and President-in-Office of the Council, indicated that the Council Secretariat had submitted to the IGC a proposal providing for the transfer from the third to the first pillar of the Treaty of matters of such importance as asylum, immigration and visa policy.

Does the Presidency find it acceptable that, as an upshot of such a reform, the Commission should be given a monopolistic right of initiative over matters so closely bound up with national sovereignty?

Joint answer to Written Questions 2765/96, 2766/96, 2767/96, 2769/96, 2770/96, 2771/96, 2772/96, 2773/96, 2774/96, 2775/96 and 2776/96 (30 January 1997)

The Council cannot comment on the various proposals under discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3462/96 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE) to the Commission (29 November 1996)

Subject: Differences in the implementation of import rules hit Union citizens

In September 1996, a German citizen of the Union travelling from Bangkok to Hamburg via Amsterdam airport - with a connecting flight to Hamburg - flew into the European Union. He was carrying a number of plants for his scientific collection. If the plants had been cleared through customs at a German airport, the German customs authorities would have checked that they could be imported under the Washington Convention on species protection and, if so, released them. At Amsterdam airport, however, he was told that there was blanket ban on the import of orchids into the Netherlands, the orchids were confiscated and proceedings brought against him (see Confiscation Certificate No 01915 of 22 September 1996 issued by the Schiphol Airport Customs Office and the letter of 10 October 1996, reference number 1.5.1.2.96.30.5380). A lot could also be said about the way in which the Netherlands customs officials treated this Union citizen, who knew nothing about the Netherlands' implementation of the import rules.

1. Now that the European internal market has been completed, is it not high time to harmonize the remaining different national import rules and their implementation, and if so, when and how can we expect this to be done?

2. Until then, should Union citizens not also be informed of the existing differences?

3. What will the European Commission do to ensure that the Union citizen affected in the present case, Professor H.-H E., gets the confiscated orchids back from the Netherlands authorities and that the customs authorities take no further action against him but rather apologize to him?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)

Under Council Regulation (EEC) no 3626/82 ((OJ L 384, 31.12.1982. )) imports of orchids require either a permit or - in the case of species listed in Appendix II to the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora - a certificate. The latter system is in particular used by Germany.

1. The Council on 9 December 1996 adopted a comprehensive new regulation that does not provide for the above option, but will subject all imports of species concerned to an import permit, entering into force on 1 June 1997.

2. Yes, the Commission will, together with the World wild fund for nature and Traffic Europe, launch an extensive information campaign at the time of adoption of the new regulation. The current Regulation has been in force since 1 January 1984 and its provisions are well known to all professionally involved in imports and exports of wild fauna and flora.

3. The Commission is not in a position to take the proposed action, given that the Dutch authorities dealt with this particular import in compliance with Community legislation.