ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1604/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Follow-up to the Helios Programme

Does the Commission agree that its forthcoming Communication on non-discrimination and equalization of opportunities for people with disabilities could be strengthened by undertaking exchange and information activities involving organizations of people with disabilities at local level in order to develop good practice? Is this not essential to ensure the direct involvement of people with disabilities themselves at the grassroots level in this field of policy and to inform both the Commission itself and the Member States in advancing the principles in the Communication? Will the Commission consider such a proposal?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 July 1996)

The promotion of equal opportunities for people with disabilities necessarily implies active participation by those people in the preparation and implementation of measures concerning them, at all levels. As part of the planned follow-up to its new initiatives, the Commission will encourage such participation, respecting the principle of subsidiarity.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1077/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Fishing issues in Essex and Kent

What actions has the Commission taken in Europe to ensure that all Member States observe the ban on the illegal use of 30ml 'blinders', through which smaller fish are continuing to be caught? What steps should be supported in order to ensure more effective monitoring and policing of quota adherence overall?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (11 June 1996)

It is the responsibility of Member States to control fishing in general and the respect of technical measures in particular.

Community legislation has been adopted which facilitates disclosure of the use of blinders through regulation of the minimum mesh sizes in certain fisheries and zones and the legal attachments that could be used. Thus Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86, 7.10.1986, OJ L 288, 11.10.1986 last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3071/95, 22.12.1995, OJ L 329, 30.12.1995. )), as currently amended, incorporates a wide range of technical measures primarily intended for the conservation of fish stocks. Furthermore, Commission Regulation No 3440/84 ((Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3440/84, 6.12.1984, OJ L 318, 7.12.1984 last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2122/89, 14.7.1989, OJ L 203, 15.7.1989. )), as amended, describes the devices that may be attached to trawls, Danish seines and similar nets.

Member States should have the necessary means and sufficient staff to carry out inspections at sea and ashore. The new control Regulation ((Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, 12.10.1993, OJ L 261, 20.10.1993. )) establishes the obligation of cross-checking logbook estimations, landing declarations and sales notes and its full implementation by the Member States will help to achieve more effective monitoring of TACs and quotas. Furthermore, the establishment of a system for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources ((Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95, 27.3.1995, OJ L 71, 31.3.1995. )) (ICES divisions Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X and CECAF areas 34.1.1., 34.1.2. and 34.2.0.) and the system of hailing ((Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/95, 20.12.1995, OJ L 308, 21.12.1995. )) in and out of different fishing areas will help the detection of some inconsistencies in the registration of the catches by fishing skippers.

Council Regulation (EC) No 847/96 of 22 April 1996 introducing additional conditions for year to year management of TACs and quotas ((OJ L 115, 9.5.1996. )) establishes some level of flexibility (+/- 10%) in the uptake of annual quotas by Member States and provides for the reduction of Member States quota in the event that their fishermen exceed national quotas. The Commission continues to monitor catches and up take of quota and does not hesitate to initiate proceedings against Member States which fail to manage their quotas properly. A recent example of this is the decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-52/95 Commission v. France ((OJ C 46, 17.2.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1242/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: COM - Fruit and vegetables

Title IV of the proposal for a regulation on the COM in fruit and vegetables (COM(95) 434 final ((OJ C 52, 21.2.1996, p. 1. ))) deals with intervention arrangements in general and, in particular, withdrawals, which are eligible for direct financial intervention by the Community. Compared with the COM currently in force, the general position is unchanged: in the fresh fruit and vegetables sector, the protection of the producers' incomes or, in other words, market price support, is achieved through the quantitative control of supply, which is the responsibility of the producer organizations competent for withdrawals.

As for intervention arrangements, does the Commission not consider it appropriate to increase the limit on quantities for withdrawal, to 20% of the marketed production of the respective producer organizations, to extend the transitional period to six years and to calculate Community withdrawal compensation on the basis of the weighted average of monthly withdrawal prices applicable in the 1995/96 marketing year?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

In its proposal for reform of the common organization of the fruit and vegetables markets, the Commission set a limit of 10%, both for quantities sold directly by the members of a producers' organization, and for the quantities to be withdrawn. This is consistent with the Commission's communication to the Council and to Parliament on the future of the fruit and vegetables sector which specified that producers' organizations should themselves market at least 80% of their members' production.

The proposal for reform is currently being studied by the Council. It is therefore too early to know what its final decision will be regarding the matter raised by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2372/96 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: 1997 preliminary draft budget

Given the importance of, and the interest shown by the European Parliament in, the European Voluntary Service programme (B3-1011), can the Commission provide a detailed report of the activities undertaken and the organizations selected etc. since the programme was started, and can it indicate how these appropriations have been used (broken down by type of expenditure)?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2318/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Reimposition of import duties by Turkey

On 22 July 1996 the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mrs Tansu Ciller, stated that the Turkish Government had decided to reimpose import duties which had been lifted in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Union between Turkey and the European Union. Given that Article 4 of the Customs Union Agreement provides for the full elimination of duties and taxation having an equivalent effect on trade between the Community and Turkey, will the Commission say: has it been notified of the Turkish Government's intentions? If so, what reasons has Turkey invoked for reimposing duties? Is such a decision by the Turkish Government consonant with the Agreement on Customs Union? What action does the Commission intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-661/96 by Mr Kranidiotis during question time at Parliament's September 1996 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (September 1996). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1430/96 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (29 May 1996)

Subject: Commission's absence from the meeting of the forum for pan-European biodiversity strategy from 15 to 17 May 1996

A meeting was held from 15 to 17 May 1996 in Strasbourg of the forum for pan-European biodiversity and landscape strategy to which the 55 countries concerned, the Commission and some international organizations and NGOs were invited.

At this meeting tasks were allocated which also directly concern the European Union's policy on biodiversity.

Can the Commission explain why, despite this fact, it did not have a representative present?

Should it therefore be concluded that the Commission attaches little priority to this important pan-European initiative?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (27 June 1996)

The Commission wrote to the Council of Europe on 6 May 1995 to apologize for its absence from the meeting of 16 and 17 May 1996 and to ask about the outcome.

As regards priorities on nature protection, following the 1995 Council Resolution on the Sofia conference, the Commission considers that within the Community, the Natura 2000 network will represent the pan-European environmental network proposed in the pan-European biodiversity strategy.

In this context, the Commission's current priority is to concentrate the resources it has available on implementing Council Directives 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )) and 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )) Unfortunately, the Commission has found that these two Directives have been incorrectly applied by most Member States. Its priority is to concentrate on fully implementing the Natura 2000 network (preparation, procedures relating to disputes, implementation of the LIFE-nature programme, information, etc.).

Externally, the Commission has already informed the forum for pan-European diversity strategy of its intention to cooperate closely with Central and Eastern European countries in particular. To this end, it will organize an initial meeting in Slovakia where the Commission will be represented.

Finally, the Commission would like to point out that it was represented at the previous meeting organized in the context of pan-European biodiversity strategy held in Geneva.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1862/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Avocado imports from ACP countries and Latin America

Granada and Málaga subtropical fruit growers are worried by the rise in imports of avocados, mangos and other subtropical fruit from ACP countries and Latin America.

What measures could the Commission take to support European producers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)

The Commission is not aware of a rise in imports of tropical fruits which might seriously disturb production conditions in the Community. The Commission does not, therefore, intend to take special measures to support European production of such fruit.

The Commission will, however, keep a close eye on market developments and would point out that the new provisions contained in the proposal for reform of the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables should enable measures to be taken to improve the competitiveness of Community producers. ((OJ C 52, 21.2.1996. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2010/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 July 1996)

Subject: Density of olive groves in Spain

According to the information available to the Commission, what is the current average density per hectare of olive trees growing in Spain?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2006/96, E-2007/96, E-2008/96, E-2009/96, E-2010/96, E-2011/96, E-2012/96 and E-2013/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)

Statistics for olive cultivation coming from different sources tend to vary considerably depending on the definitions on which they are based, and need to be treated with caution. However, on the specific points requested by the Honourable Member, the following figures may be advanced.

The total number of productive olive trees in each of the Member States in question, according to the official returns received by the Commission from the national authorities for the purposes of setting annual fruit and oil yields for the 1994/95 marketing year, was as follows:

>TABLE>

The average density of olive plantations in those Member States (trees per hectare) is:

>TABLE>

The average density thus varies considerably between Member States and may also vary significantly from region to region - or even farm to farm - within Member States, depending on the degree of local specialization or industrialization of olive growers.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/96 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Utilization of budgetary funds for the defence of human rights

European Union aid in the field of human rights is granted through the budget lines under the heading 'European initiative for democracy and the protection of human rights'.

In its annual report for 1995, the Commission states that ECU 5.5 m were utilized under budget line B7-5240 and supplies a list of the organizations and associations which received financial support.

1. What criteria were used to select projects from among those submitted?

2. Were steps taken to ensure that, on the basis of the projects submitted and in compliance with the expenditure criteria laid down by the European Parliament, a proper balance was achieved between organizations in all the Member States of the EU?

3. Would it not be appropriate to present a full list of the projects submitted, i.e. including those rejected, specifying the reasons for this decision?

4. Does the Commission agree that a detailed examination of the activities of the European Human Rights Foundation should be carried out on the basis of the requirements so far envisaged, given that this organization receives almost one third of the funds allocated from budgetary line B7-5240?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2163/96 and E-2164/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

As the Honourable Member points out, the Commission makes a full report to the Parliament on the use of funds under budget line B7-7040. The last such report sent on 15 January 1996, relating to 1995, specified the objectives of the line which carefully follow the budget commentary. The selection of projects is made with reference to these objectives purely on the basis of requests received by non-governmental organisations, irrespective of the Member State of origin. As many projects as possible are funded, provided they fall within the stated criteria, until the line is exhausted for the budget year in question.

With regard to the European human rights foundation, this organisation publishes a full annual report on its activities and the criteria under which they are conducted, which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2154/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Promotion of smoking on university campuses

American cigarette manufacturers are in the habit of sponsoring party nights at universities in Belgium.

Can the Commission say whether this practice is known in other Member States and whether it believes that anything can be done at Community level to put an end to this clear attempt to promote the consumption of a lethal drug amongst young people?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)

No. The Commission has no information at its disposal concerning this marketing technique. However, in its amended proposal for a Council directive on the approximation of Member States' laws, reulations and administrative provisions on advertising of tobacco products ((OJ C 129 of 21.5.1992. )), it is envisaged that any free distribution of tobacco products be banned.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2371/96 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Preliminary draft budget for 1997

In the light of the rate of implementation of the Youth for Europe programme (B3-1010) on 30 June, can the Commission state what progress has been reached with each of the actions included in the programme (A, B, C, D, E and the accompanying measures) and provide reasons?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1996)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that, while the rate of implementation of the Youth for Europe programme stood at 61% on 30 June 1996, it was already approaching 82% by the end of August (73% having been definitively accounted for), and that 100% implementation of the 1996 appropriations is expected, bearing in mind the projects due to be selected on 1 October in respect of actions A.1, A.II.1, A.II.2 and D, as well as the projects associated with the other actions which are still under consideration.

With regard to action-by-action implementation, independently of action A.I, managed on a decentralised basis by the national agencies of each Member State (EU Member States and participating countries of the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Area), and the operating subsidies allocated to each agency in connection with support measures, it should be pointed out that the Commission and the national agencies still have to devise ways of working together effectively, particularly with regard to information, advice and technical assistance:

- in connection with youth initiatives (action A.II.1), so that the young people's response in terms of the number and quality of projects allows commitment of the total amount of appropriations initially allocated to this action;

- in connection with cooperation between Member States' structures (action C), so that local and regional authorities and other bodies are better placed to exploit the full potential of initiatives arising from this action.

As for action E.II, twelve studies have already been selected and will be covered by financial commitments in the very near future, bringing this heading to a 100% rate of implementation.

The Commission will forward directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's Secretariat-General a table reviewing the action-by-action implementation of the Youth for Europe programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2092/96 by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Anti-competitive practices by Turkish textile and clothing companies

It appears that, since the entry into force of the Customs Union with Turkey, the EU's textile and clothing industry has been facing stiffer competition.

Turkish textile companies are engaging in a number of practices which distort competition and prevent the market from operating as it should.

On the one hand, EU textile companies are having to battle against export subsidies of approximately 17% which make Turkish textile products abnormally cheap (dumping).

On the other hand it appears that Turkey still has 11 free zones which enable manufacturers to import and export goods without any quota restrictions or customs duties.

Since the entry into force of the Customs Union it should in principle be no longer possible for such zones to be used for exports to the EU.

Lastly all of these practices contravene the Customs Union protocol.

Could the Commission intervene in order to put a stop to the practices described above, which are being engaged in by Turkish textile companies and are distorting competition?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

The decision of the Community-Turkey association council on implementing the final phase of the customs union, which came into force on 31 December 1995, does not prevent the parties concerned from continuing to use their respective trade defence instruments (such as anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation). In this regard, if the Community industry is experiencing problems from imports of products from Turkey which it considers to be unfairly priced, the Community is entitled, if certain criteria are met, to take action to protect its industry. The Community's anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation provides that, if the Community industry makes a formal complaint to the Commission, investigations may be undertaken of allegations of unfair pricing by third country exporters which is causing injury to the Community industry, and appropriate measures may subsequently be taken.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2312/96 by Luigi Moretti (ELDR) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Publications receiving financial support from the European Commission

With reference to Mr Flynn's answer to Written Question E-1567/96 ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996, p. 86. )) concerning Community subsidies granted to CERA for the publication 'Les Extrémismes de l'Atlantique à l'Oural', can the Commission explain why it granted the subsidy?

Since the Commission used the amount given to purchase 50% of the volumes produced, can it say why it chose to distribute this work which contains statements and studies the scientific nature of which is open to doubt?

Did the Commission take steps to ascertain whether the information contained in the publication is true?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)

Under a resolution of the European Parliament of 21 April 1993 concerning the resurgence of racism and xenophobia in Europe and the danger of right-wing extremist violence, the European Centre for Research and Action on Racism and Anti-Semitism (CERA) receives an annual grant to carry out specific projects in this field which is decided by the budgetary authority ((OJ L 22, 29.1.1996. )).

The Commission has not acquired 50% of the volumes produced. It has received about ten copies for internal use.

It is not up to the Commission to check information published by non-governmental organisations receiving subsidies under the budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1250/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (23 May 1996)

Subject: Fishery resources and fishing rights

After prolonged efforts, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, established as a principle of the right to fish the obligation to conserve and rationally manage natural resources.

It also encouraged the interested States to cooperate in adopting effective measures to safeguard and to conserve these resources. Such provisions have proved to be essential with regard to both the extension of fishing zones and the steady increase in deep sea fishing.

The international Conventions to which the EU is a party are geared to the direct protection of species (NASCO), or safeguarding species within certain geographical areas (NAFO).

Has independent research has been conducted within the EU on the state of fishery resources which come under the Community's jurisdiction?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1996)

The Honourable Member correctly points out that, under the regime established by the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea of 1982, the right to fish carries with it, in principle, an obligation to take appropriate conservation measures for the fisheries resources concerned, on the basis of the best scientific advice available.

The Northwest Atlantic fisheries organization (NAFO) has a scientific council of its own which provides the relevant scientific advice. In the case of the North Atlantic salmon conservation organization (NASCO) and the North-East Atlantic fisheries commission (NEAFC), the relevant scientific advice is provided, upon request of these organizations, by the International council for the exploration of the sea (ICES).

As regards conservation measures which the Community has to take for the fisheries resources within Community fishing waters, as well as conservation measures which the Community takes autonomously for fisheries resources of the high seas, or which the Community takes through direct cooperation with other states in the case of joint stocks (for example, with Norway), the relevant independent scientific advice is equally provided by ICES.