ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1104/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Production and marketing of olive oil

Why has the Commission, in the envisaged reform of the COM in olive oil, chosen not to promote quality production and tie aid to proven sales?

Would this not help prevent fraud in connection with such aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

On 12 February 1997 the Commission adopted a document on the reform of the olive oil sector ((Doc COM (97) 57. )) which sets out a range of options, including one based on actual marketed production. The main problem of this option is the existence of direct ex-farm sales and traditional on-farm consumption in two of the main producer countries (Italy and Greece).

The adoption of such an option would have the following consequences:

- traditional direct trade between producers and consumers would be eliminated, and consequently

- thousands of small producers would have to adapt to new marketing structures.

Conversely, this option could facilitate monitoring of the entire olive oil industry, but it would be difficult to apply in Member States where the direct-sale system predominates.

However, whichever alternative is finally implemented, the Commission intends to continue the specific measures already set up to encourage quality on the basis of programmes to improve olive oil production by improving the use of available funds and giving a more important role to olive oil.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0298/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Olive oil

In the last five years, the Court of Auditors has audited and reported upon the management of a number of different common market organizations.

The Court has examined the follow-up to the observations it made in its annual reports on the financial years 1990 to 1992 in an effort to determine whether the Commission has improved the management and control of various agricultural markets in line with the recommendations and observations made by the Court.

With regard to the olive oil sector, the Council and Parliament endorsed the Court of Auditors' conclusions regarding the need to improve the control system and the urgent need to establish a comprehensive olive cultivation register. Four years later, the main olive oil producing Member States have still not fully established an olive cultivation register, with the result that the control system remains unreliable.

What deadlines will the Commission set and what measures will it take to ensure that the Member States establish the olive cultivation register, which is already four years behind schedule?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 March 1997)

The Italian olive cultivation register was completed, (i.e. its entries had been confirmed by growers and hence were legally invocable) in 1989, for olive oil production aid payments for the 1987/88 marketing year. It has since then been updated and for details of this the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's reply to Question E-4001/96 by Mr Arias Cañete ((OJ C 186 of 18.6.1997, p. 163. )).

The Spanish authorities have undertaken to finish compilation by the end of 1988.

As regards Greece and Portugal, the Commission, aware of the difficulties encountered in compilation of the register, is now turning its attention to exploitation to this end of the work carried out to establish the integrated and administration control system in these Member States. This tool was introduced as part of the CAP reform from 1 February 1993 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes ((OJ L 355, 5.12.1992. )) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 ((OJ L 391, 31.12.1992. )), and requires the introduction of alphanumeric identification of agricultural parcels and establishment of a database permitting cross-checks.

Since responsibility for implementing the Community provisions on establishment of the register is exclusively that of Member States, should they fail to apply these provisions or do so inadequately or should their expenditure be inconsistent with the rules, the Commission may as part of the accounts clearance procedure impose the financial corrections it deems necessary.

For action by the Commission to secure operation of olive cultivation registers by the Member States the Honourable Member is also referred to its consolidated reply to Questions E-315/97 to 319/97 by Mr Garcia-Margallo y Marfil ((See page 60. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0844/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (10 March 1997)

Subject: Schengen Agreement

In December 1996, Iceland and Norway concluded a cooperation agreement with the countries which have signed to the Schengen Agreement.

Under what circumstances was this cooperation agreement with Iceland and Norway concluded? What are the rights and duties of the parties to the agreement?

Answer (5 June 1997)

It is not for the Council of the Union European to answer this question, which should be addressed to the Schengen Agreement bodies.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0948/97 by Leonie van Bladel (UPE) to the Council (17 March 1997)

Subject: Middle East

What action is the Council taking in the context of peace policy in the Middle East in response to the statement made by the Prime Minister of Iran, Rafsanjani, on 7 February 1997 that 'Israel is a dragon created by the West'?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0946/97, E-0947/97 and E-0948/97 (1 July 1997)

1. The European Union has pursued its Critical Dialogue with Iran in accordance with the decision of the European Council in Edinburgh, 1992. Its aim in conducting the Critical Dialogue was to encourage a more positive and constructive Iranian role in the region. It has made it clear that EU-Iran relations cannot develop normally in the absence of progress in the areas dealt with in the Critical Dialogue.

2. Following the findings of the Superior Court of Justice in Berlin in the so-called Mykonos case, the Presidency issued on 10 April 1997 a statement on behalf of the European Union, condemning the involvement of the Iranian authorities. The European Union noted that under the present circumstances there is no basis for the continuation of the critical dialogue.

3. At its meeting in Luxembourg, on 29/30 April 1997, the Council had an extensive discussion on European Union relations with Iran. It agreed on a number of measures with respect to Iran and decided to keep the relationship with Iran under close review.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1188/97 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Export ban on British beef

Given that all meat and bone meal has been removed from the animal food chain in the UK since 1 July 1996, and that a passport system is now in place, is the over 30 month slaughter scheme not now superfluous and the need for an export ban at an end?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

Available evidence confirms that cattle in the United Kingdom continued to be exposed to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) infection in contaminated feed after the initial ruminant feed ban in 1988, although at a much reduced level. Given the much more strict controls applied since meat and bone meal was prohibited in 1996 from all farm animal feeds in the United Kingdom and as a result of Commission inspection reports, there is greater confidence that exposure through feed has been minimised, if not eliminated, since 1 August 1996.

Cattle aged more than thirty months may have been exposed to the agent and, therefore, could be incubating the disease. Products from these animals pose the highest risk to public health. Therefore, in order to protect public health and help improve consumer confidence it is necessary to continue with the over thirty month slaughter scheme.

Concerning the passport system, this was introduced for cattle born after 1 July 1996 and does not apply to those born before that date. These passports will provide a much improved system for recording animal identification and movements in Great Britain. However, it will be some time before animals which have reached slaughter age benefit from the passport system.

The application of the over thirty months scheme, an effective animal identification and movement recording system and legislation on the removal of meat and bone meal from feed mills and farms are three of the preconditions laid down in the Florence agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0842/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: European rice sector

On 13 February 1997, European rice producers, mainly from Italy, Greece, Portugal and France, held a demonstration in Brussels to protest against the difficult situation currently affecting the sector on account of the many preferential agreements concluded between the EU and third countries and the level of imports from countries such as Thailand, Egypt and the USA.

Could the Commission explain the attitude it has adopted in response to the demands of European rice growers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1997)

A delegation received by the Commission when rice producers demonstrated in Brussels on 13 February 1997 voiced a number of concerns, in particular over zero duty imports from the overseas countries and territories, introduction of the cumulative recovery system and levels of imports from other third countries. It also raised the question of exports and the need to find an outlet for European rice through greater recourse to food aid schemes.

The Commission took note of the demands made and explained the measures taken and to be taken in the sector to prevent disturbance. It will continue to monitor the Community rice market and will make any proposals needed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1091/97 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Beef exports to South Africa

According to a report by the UK-based NGO Christian Aid, heavily subsidized EU beef exports are undercutting livestock farmers in South Africa and Namibia, threatening livelihoods and directly contradicting the EU's own efforts, through its development aid programme, to aid reconstruction in the region.

Would the Commission agree that this practice is in the long-term interests of none of the parties involved and does it intend to re-examine its export subsidy policies to eliminate the threat to the indigenous agriculture of developing countries which this and other cases have shown them to be?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

The Commission has recently received a copy of a research report by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Christian Aid, alleging that subsidised Community beef exports are having an adverse affect on the beef industry in South Africa and in Namibia. The report is currently being examined by the Commission and it is not yet in a position to make detailed comments on its findings.

South Africa had already informed the Commission in August 1996 of its concerns that subsidised imports of beef from the Community were posing a threat to the South African meat industry and requested a decrease in the level of export refunds to encourage South African importers to source more meat in neighbouring countries.

In reply, the Commission reminded South Africa of its world trade organisation (WTO) commitments which included accepting domestic support and export subsidies. The Commission emphasised that it had no wish to undercut local prices and requested that South Africa supply detailed information to support its claim so that the Commission could act accordingly. On 3 March 1997, South Africa submitted a detailed analysis of the situation which is being examined by the Commission in conjunction with the NGO report.

In an effort to improve the situation of the meat trade within the 'Southern African Development Community' (SACU), the Commission decided from 1 February 1997 to reduce by approximately 8% the level of export refunds for certain cuts of meat exported from the Communty to those regions. These measures are additional to the 10% global reduction in the level of refunds in the meat sector, for exports to all destinations which took effect from 15 January 1997. It is premature to predict whether further reductions in the level of export refunds will be necessary in the near future.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1350/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Women officials in the Commission

What percentage of C-grade staff employed by the Commission are women?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1347/97, E-1349/97, E-1350/97 and E-1351/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The numbers of women in the different categories in the Commission, as at March 1997, are as follows:

>TABLE>

These figures concern only permanent officials on the operational budget and do not include officials under the research budget, or temporary and auxiliary staff.

It can be noted that the Commission has set annual objectives for female recruitment in order to increase the number of women in all levels of category A, including management posts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1168/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Publishing rural development guides

In certain Community regions, rural developments guides have been drawn up and disseminated in response to the fact that there is widespread ignorance in the rural and farming world of the opportunities and instruments available at national or Community level to encourage economic initiatives of all kinds.

These guides are a useful, effective and productive tool for tackling the problems which arise with regard to implementing any development programme designed to guarantee and indeed increase rural income levels by encouraging diversification of economic activity in the countryside and enabling modern agricultural structures to be developed as key factors in the rural economy.

In view of the success of the guides in question, has the Commission considered encouraging their production and publication at regional and local level and thus actively incorporating them in a new Community policy to provide the rural sector with practical information, so as to help prevent the further emptying of the countryside?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

The Commission is aware of the existence of various guides to the different Community instruments for financing initiatives which contribute to the development of rural areas. It also shares the opinion of the Honourable Member as to the usefulness of disseminating this information and, more generally, on the importance of improved information in the rural environment.

The Commission is in fact in the process of setting up an information policy on rural development. As one of the various planned initiatives, the Commission intends to publish basic documentation on the Community's projects in rural development, ensure that distribution is very broad and use the most appropriate media (booklets, video, Internet, etc). The guides cited by the Honourable Member may well be publicised within the framework of this information policy.

It should also be mentioned that, within the framework of the Community rural development initiative Leader, detailed, specific information is widely disseminated by the company European Association for Information on Local Development (AEIDL), who have now signed a contract to manage the Leader European Observatory. This information, taken from various publications and bulletins and compiled by an internet service called Rural Europe, is made available to several tens of thousands of rural development players throughout the Community.

Finally, the Commission has its own rural environment information network: the network of Information and Rural Promotion Carrefours, which serve to bring European information right to the heart of the various sectors in rural society. Today nearly 90 Carrefours are spread out across the rural regions of Europe and established within pre-existing bodies which have recognized information experience in the field of rural development. A list forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat provides details of all these Carrefours.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1163/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: Use of evaluation panels in selection of projects for ERDF Article 10 programmes

In the interests of transparency, will the Commission identify the different evaluation panels it is using in the selection of projects for ERDF Article 10 programmes, and give a breakdown of the members of the different panels, showing the nationality, gender and special interests or expertise which each member represents?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

As already indicated to the Honourable Member in reply to his written question E-1623/96 ((OJ C 385, 19.12.1996. )), these matters involve procedures internal to the Commission. The interests of transparency, as raised in the question, have to be balanced against the need, often stressed by Parliament, for the experts involved in the selection of these projects to maintain their independence and impartiality.

Publishing their names could only weaken their position in this regard and cannot therefore be contemplated.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1587/97 by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Market definitions for interconnection in telecommunications

Article 4(3) of the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of ONP (Common position 34/96 ((OJ C 220, 29.7.1996, p. 13. ))) states that an organization is presumed to have significant market power when it has a share of more than 25% of a particular telecommunications market in the geographical area of a Member State within which it is authorized to operate. The Commission opinion pursuant to Article 189b(2(d)) of the EC Treaty on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position on the proposal (COM(96)535) revised the wording of Article 7(2) so that the crucial factor is that the national regulatory authorities have informed the organizations offering public mobile telephone networks that they have significant market power on the national market for interconnection.

Can the Commission confirm that the two market definitions are not identical?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

Article 4(3) of the draft interconnection directive defines the general criteria for a national regulatory authority to apply when determining whether an organisation has significant market power. The assessment must be made on the basis of: 'the particular telecommunications market in the geographical area in a Member State within which it (ie the organisation) is authorized to operate'.

Article 7(2), last sentence, reads: 'This paragraph shall also apply to organisations set out in part 3 of Annex I (ie public mobile telephony operators) which have been notified by national regulatory authorities as having significant market power on the national market for interconnection'. This is the wording as set out in the amended proposal of the Commission ((COM(96) 535. )) as now included in the joint text agreed by the Parliament and the Council in the conciliation meeting held on 19 March 1997.

In general, when considering whether or not to designate an organisation as having significant market power, the national regulatory authority has to decide what the relevant market is, taking into account the precise nature of the obligations laid down in the directive. In the specific case of obligations on mobile operators in Article 7(2), the draft directive requires that the relevant market be considered as the national market for interconnection (ie the market for fixed and mobile interconnection combined).

The Commission confirms that the market definition laid down in Article 7(2) applies only to Article 7(2), and that a different definition of the relevant market, in accordance with Article 4(3), will be appropriate for other articles of the directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in Italy

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

Of this expenditure, refunds on olive oil accounted for ECU 38.2 million and ECU 40 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

What is the total figure for expenditure in respect of refunds on olive oil in Italy?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1800/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (28 May 1997)

Subject: Shameless Turkish provocation aimed at the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople

In an unprecedented move, the Turkish Embassy in Brussels has sent a letter signed by Counsellor Cemil Karaman to Mr Etienne Quintiens, the Secretary of the Committee of Christian Churches in Belgium notifying him that there was no 'Ecumenical Patriarchate' in Istanbul, but a 'Patriarchate of the Fanar', and threatening that letters addressed to the 'Ecumenical Patriarchate' would be returned to the sender.

Will the Commission state its views on this shameless act of Turkish provocation, and say how it intends to react to actions by a country which aspires to EU membership, but shows no sign of behaving like a European state?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1997)

The Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction in this matter.