ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3185/97 by Luigi Caligaris (ELDR) to the Commission (9 October 1997)

Subject: Applicability of the special customs arrangements at the free port of Trieste

The Trieste court has recently confirmed the applicability of the special customs arrangements authorized for the free port of Trieste by Annex VIII to the 1947 Paris peace treaty.

The judgment affirms that the provisions do not conflict with the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Community or the Community customs code which exclude other provisions laid down in international conventions previously concluded.

According to some, the provisions apply not only to the free transit of totally customs-free goods (unloading, loading, warehousing, trading, processing) but also to all operations concerning goods subject to quotas in the EU, the importation and processing of heavily taxed products, the processing for export of goods and equipment for EU stamping, and the processing of extra-Community products subject to EU protectionist rules and readmitted to EU territory as approved finished products.

Is this interpretation consistent with European legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1997)

The basic rules governing free zones in Member States of the Community are set by the Community Customs Code ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992). )) and the provisions implementing it ((Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993). )). They lay down the principle that European free zones are included in the customs territory, meaning that they are subject - with exceptions which are exhaustively laid down - to general measures applying in the rest of the customs territory.

Exceptions are predominantly concerned with exemption from import duties and charges and from commercial policy measures in respect of third-country products. And Community products in a free zone are allowed to enjoy the tax benefits attaching to exportation.

The Community rules lay down very simple procedures for customs control of the transhipment and storage of goods in free zones and for handling carried out in them. They provide in principle for declaration and presentation of goods to customs to be abolished and require stock records to be kept. Industrial processing may also be carried out in free zones, subject to the rules for customs procedures with economic impact and processing traffic in particular.

According to the Commission's information, Italian law poses a problem with respect to Community law particularly as regards time to pay and industrial processing.

The 1947 Treaty of Paris (Annex VIII) and the 1975 Osimo bilateral agreement (between Italy and Yugoslavia) do not seem to permit facilities not provided for in the abovementioned Community rules to be allowed in the Trieste free zone. The Italian authorities have been approached in order to clarify the situation. Should it be confirmed that there is failure to comply with Community rules, the Italian authorities would not be authorised to permit the derogations in question unless the Community Customs Code is amended.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3154/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Genetically modified rape seed

Can the Commission please indicate the latest position regarding experiments in genetically modified rape seed and when and where the results of these experiments will be made available to the general public?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 November 1997)

Under Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )), a consent is required before research and development releases of genetically modified plants can proceed. The operation of the consent system for these releases is undertaken at the Member State level by a competent authority appointed under the Directive. The Commission is not involved in this process, but is kept informed by the competent authority by way of a summary of each notification which it also circulates to all other Member States. The Commission has to the end of September 1997, been informed of 251 such releases from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and United Kingdom, involving oilseed rape.

Notifiers undertaking releases are required, under Article 8 of the Directive, to send to the competent authority the result of the release in respect of any risk to human health and the environment. There is no requirement in the Directive for Member States to make these reports available to the general public. Some Member States, including the United Kingdom, do make such reports available to the public through nominated enquiry points. Members of the public wishing to obtain information on the results of the releases of oilseed rape, in respect of risks to human health and the environment, would have to request the information from the relevant contact point in the Member State concerned, a list of which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3017/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997)

Subject: Forestry

With reference to 'The situation and problems of forestry in the European Union and potential for developing forestry policies' (CES 0476/97) ((OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 128. ));

and given that the forestry sector is a source of employment and economic wealth in the European Union, the basic objective of the EU's forestry strategy should be to promote the commercial exploitation of forests. This would help to safeguard jobs particularly in structurally weak regions and also create new jobs, despite the fact that technological progress will inevitably mean that jobs will be lost as well. Forest management and use must also be economically, socially and ecologically sustainable.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3017/97 and E-3018/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1997)

The Honourable Member refers to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) on the situation and problems of forestry in the European Union and potential for developing forestry policies.

The Commission warmly welcomed this report and agrees with it in many respects, particularly on sustainable forest management, which covers not only the financial but also the environmental and social aspects, and on the role of forestry and related industries in providing jobs and income in rural areas.

Before the end of the year the Commission will be submitting a report on the implementation of forestry measures in agriculture, showing the economic, environmental and social impact of these measures. In addition, the Community's forestry measures are described in the Commission's Report to Parliament on agriculture and rural development (A4-0414/96).

At the beginning of 1999, in response to Parliament's resolution of 30 January 1997 on the Community's forestry strategy (Thomas report), the Commission will be presenting a proposal for a European forestry strategy, which will take account inter alia of the objectives of Agenda 2000 ((Doc. COM (97) final 2000. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3341/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (22 October 1997)

Subject: Erasmus accompanying measures

Some of those taking part in the Socrates programme (Action III) have expressed surprise at the fact that the Socrates accompanying measures will from now on be focused on national rather than transnational organizations.

Can the Commission confirm this change?

If so, what were the reasons for the change?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1997)

The Honourable Member is probably referring to the complementary measures under the Socrates programme which are set out in Chapter III, Action 3, point 5, section B of the Annex to Decision 819/95/EC ((OJ L 87, 20.4.1995. )) establishing the action programme.

The Commission can confirm that there has been no change in policy in this regard. As the 1997 applicants' guide points out, the complementary measures are open to institutions, organisations or associations working in the education sector. As a general rule, the activities undertaken by European associations and groupings are dealt with as a matter of priority. Furthermore, one of the activities that receives support is the setting-up or consolidation of European associations in the field of education.

For all projects receiving support under Action 3 of the programme, particular attention is paid to the multilateral nature of the activities and the quality of the projects with a view to introducing a European dimension into the area of education.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1684/97 by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission (20 May 1997)

Subject: EU contributions/volume of aid

In Austria different figures are circulating in the media on the actual contribution made by Austria and the amount it receives from the various aid programmes.

1. What was Austria's contribution as a Member State in 1996?

2. What will the level of contributions be in 1997 and 1998?

3. What was the level of funding planned by the Commission which could in theory have returned to Austria?

4. What was the level of funding approved by the Commission which could in theory have returned to Austria?

5. What funding (broken down by areas of support and budget titles) actually returned to Austria in 1996?

6. What is the difference between the theoretical level of funding, the level of funding approved by the EU and the funding which actually returned to Austria in 1996?

7. What level of funding not taken up by Austria in 1996 can be transferred to 1997 without being lost?

8. What funding not taken up by Austria in 1996 will be lost to Austria?

9. What aid for 1997 has Austria so far applied for?

10. What aid for 1997 (for Austria) has so far been approved by the Commission?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1997)

The Honourable Member is referred to the study on contributions to the Community budget which was transmitted to Parliament on 14 October 1997 ((SEC(97) 1918. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3305/97 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Road accidents in Belgium

Can the Commission say, according to the data in its possession, how many people have been killed or injured in traffic accidents in Belgium in recent years and how these figures translate into numbers of deaths per million vehicles (a) in Belgium and (b) in comparison with the general situation throughout the European Union?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3304/97 and E-3305/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

In 1994, 1 543 people were killed in traffic accidents in Belgium and 73 338 were injured. Based on the number killed by million inhabitants over the period 1991-1994, the position of Belgium is worse than the European average, and that of seven other Member States. It is however difficult to make precise comparisons between Member States as there are a number of factors, such as the quality of infrastructure, which are not comparable.

The Commission has calculated that the direct cost of road accidents (including the cost of police and emergency services, vehicle repairs, and lost economic output), is 45 000 MECU per year for the Community as a whole. When divided by the total of 45 000 road fatalities in the Community per year, this gives a simple average of 1 MECU per death.

The Commission has adopted a communication 'Promoting road safety in the EU - The programme for 1997-2001' ((COM(97) 131 final. )) which sets out in detail the Commission's plans to build on the successes of the first action programme which ran from 1993-1996. The Commission's actions will focus on three areas: information gathering and dissemination in order to identify and to monitor the situation; initiating and supporting measures to avoid accidents, with an emphasis on the human factor and its interface with environment; and initiating and supporting measures to reduce the consequences of accidents when they occur. If the measures proposed in the action programme are implemented, the Commission believes that a reduction of 18 000 fatalities per year could be achieved by the year 2010.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3560/97 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Council (3 November 1997)

Subject: Use of products confiscated because of Community fraud

Fraudulent goods worth hundreds of millions of pounds are confiscated every year in the EU, in application of the regulation on the protection of trademarks and intellectual property rights.

This creates two difficult situations that need rectifying. On the one hand, there are the rights of the legitimate manufacturers, whose design, trademark and logo have been imitated or plagiarized. They are entitled to the guarantee that such products will never again be commercially available. This entitlement has been fulfilled up to now, resulting in the destruction in Spain of goods to the value of 20 000 million pesetas every year.

On the other hand, it is depressing to see these goods being destroyed when they could be used by millions of Europeans who are affected by social exclusion and the scourge of poverty, in what is known as the 'fourth world'.

Has the Council considered the possibility of informing and advising the various judicial authorities in the Member States of an alternative solution to destruction?

Answer (19 January 1998)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to refer to the replies it gave to Written Questions No 0065/97 and No 0845/97 on the same subject. The Council would point out that the fate of the goods confiscated is determined by each national legislation and that there is nothing in Council Regulation No 3295/94, which is relevant at Community level, to stop the competent national authorities from offering confiscated goods to charitable organizations. Since each Member State is responsible for this area, there are no plans within the Council to take any action to provide information or advice regarding confiscated products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (13 October 1997)

Subject: Voting rights of non-national EU citizens in Member States

Under the Treaty on European Union, every citizen has the right to vote in municipal elections in the EU Member State where he or she is resident under the same conditions as nationals of that country. Directive 94/80 ((OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 38. )) laid down the detailed arrangements for the exercise of those rights and was to have been transposed into national law by 1 January 1996.

One of my constituents has been told by a French department office that she is not eligible to vote in the relevant local elections because she has not been continually resident there for not less than six months.

In practice, Member States and their municipalities are able to exercise some discretion over the application of the provisions of the directive. For example, Article 4(2) states that: 'if, under the laws of the Member State of residence, its own nationals may vote ... only in the basic local government unit in which they have their principal residence, voters ... within the scope of Article 3 shall also be subject to this condition.'

However, Article 4(1) specifies that: 'if, in order to vote ... nationals of the Member State of residence must have spent a certain minimum period as a resident in that territory of that State ... voters shall be deemed to have fulfilled that condition where they have resided for an equivalent period in other Member States.'

What mechanisms does the Commission have in place to monitor the application of this directive and ensure that the various derogations and discretionary features of the directive are being correctly applied and are not leading to discrimination against non-nationals?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1997)

France has not yet implemented Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals and therefore Union citizens resident in France are at present unable to vote or to stand as candidates in municipal elections there. Consequently the Commission has opened infringement proceedings against France.

Concerning the monitoring of the application of the Directive, it should be noted that once the national implementing measures are notified the Commission makes a detailed analysis to determine whether they are compatible with the provisions of the Directive. Moreover, the Commission follows up any complaint it receives from citizens alleging instances of incorrect application of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3641/97 by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Experimentation on wild animals

Would the Commission please detail any factors which it considers would prevent the inclusion of a ban on the use of wild-caught primates for experiments in the EU in the 'Community Policy Statement on the use of Primates as Laboratory Animals' currently being drafted?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)

The draft Community policy statement on the use of primates as laboratory animals is a working document which will be used as a basis for discussions on the use of non-human primates.

The measures covered by this working document together with other issues concerning the use of non-human primates will be discussed at the next meeting of the national authorities responsible for the implementation of Directive 86/609/EEC concerning the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )), scheduled to take place on 4 December 1997. In the light of the outcome of this meeting the Commission will then consult representatives of industry and non-governmental organisations.

At this stage it is not yet possible to present a position on possible options concerning a ban on the use of wild-caught primates.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3420/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (31 October 1997)

Subject: Measures on behalf of Romanies and Pomaks

The operational programme 'Combating exclusion from the labour market' and, in particular, Measure 4 of Sub-programme 3 - 'Integration and reintegration of other social groups excluded from the labour market' - target Romanies and Pomaks in an attempt to combat illiteracy, offer them vocational development and other measures.

Given that there is a timetable for implementing Sub-programme 3, will the Commission say:

1. what stage the sub-programme has reached and what measures have been put into effect, and

2. whether take-up is behind schedule and, if so, what the main reasons are for the delays?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1997)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, according to data provided by the Greek authorities, around 20% of the total budget of measure 4 'Romanies (Gypsies) and Pomacks' of subprogramme 3 'Other excluded groups' of the operational programme 'Combating exclusion from the labour market' (1994-1999 Community support framework for Greece) was absorbed by July 1997. A total of around 1 560 people benefited from the relevant measures. An amount of 948.000 ECU (European social fund contribution) was approved during the operational programme monitoring committee meeting in July 1997 for 1997 action.

Implemented projects included actions aiming to combat the socio-economic exclusion of the afore-mentioned target groups such as, pre-training, (including literacy) training, promotion of employment and accompanying/support services.

There have been delays in the specific operational programme implementation due to the difficulties in applying its innovative approach, the lack of appropriate structures for action implementation as well as the difficulties during the 1995-1996 period in particular to establish and apply systems and procedures that would guarantee more effective implementation.

Taking into consideration the experience acquired during the first implementation period, the Greek authorities are currently elaborating an in-depth modification of the operational programme aiming at developing policies and actions to address more effectively the specific needs of the target groups in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3237/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (20 October 1997)

Subject: Funding of environmental impact surveys

According to reports appearing in authoritative Greek newspapers, from 1990 onwards, thousands of environmental impact surveys required under Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) have been assigned to third parties having no particular knowledge of the subject matter. This has produced dubious results regarding the quality of the surveys and many of the public works concerned have been blocked or, alternatively, carried out with irreversible consequences.

1. Can the Commission say what environmental impact surveys it has funded in Greece for the period 1990-1997?

2. What was the total amount of funding for the studies?

3. Who carried out the surveys and to what extent were the results in accordance with the desired objectives?

4. Will an investigation be carried out into the use of funds earmarked for environmental impact surveys in Greece to establish whether or not they were properly used?

5. If irregularities are revealed, will the Commission request reimbursement of sums unduly paid?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1997)

The execution and funding of environmental impact surveys as part of the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment pursuant to Directive 85/337/EEC is the responsibility of the developer, while it is for the authorities to verify that this procedure has been properly carried out. With regard to the transposition of the Directive in Greece, this is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment and Public Works. In the case of projects not funded by the Community, the Commission does not intervene in this procedure either to monitor or assess the studies, but it does demand compliance with the abovementioned Directive and takes action if it is not properly applied.

With regard to private or public projects which are co-funded under existing Community programmes, the cost of an environmental survey, which is the first step in the environmental assessment procedure, is also eligible for co-funding and is part of the total cost of the project. This means it is impossible for the Commission to have figures on either the number or total cost of or the persons responsible for surveys carried out between 1990 and 1997.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, however, responsibility for carrying out the environmental assessment procedure and for carrying out the project is the responsibility of the authorities concerned.