ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1411/96 by Georges Berthu (EDN) to the Council (28 May 1996)

Subject: Free trade areas

At the working meeting of the EU agriculture ministers on 7 May 1996 in Otranto (Italy), the President-in-Office of the Council presented a document that set out the risks of a proliferation of free trade areas and, according to press reports, pointed out that this policy completely ignores the impact on the sectors concerned or else assumes that whole sectors of production can survive the shock of opening up the markets.

1. Does the Council intend to make this document public and make it available to all MEPs, especially members of the Committee on Agriculture and the REX Committee?

2. Does the Council think it would be useful to commission an impartial and broad-based study on the full consequences of the Community's free-trade policy? (The Commission would not be responsible for carrying out or commissioning this study or for signing the contracts.)

3. Does the Council intend to return the Commission to a role that is strictly confined to applying the policies laid down by the Council? Could it not use the opportunity of the IGC to remove the ambiguities of Articles 113 and 228 concerning the Commission's degree of autonomy in this connection, especially by increasing the transparency of international trade negotiations and by making it clear that the Commission has no prior right to commit the Community by signature de facto or de jure?

Reply (14 October 1996)

The Ministers for Agriculture of the Member States of the European Union and the Commissioner with responsibility for agriculture customarily meet once every six months in the country holding the Presidency, at the Presidency's invitation, to discuss informally topics of general interst which might later result in formal acts, to be drawn up under the institutional procedures laid down by the Treaty.

This was the case with the informal meeting on 7 May 1996 in Otranto, where the Presidency suggested as a discussion topic the establishment of free-trade areas and their impact on Community agriculture and presented a working paper by way of introduction.

With particular regard to the Honourable Member's three questions, the following points should be made:

re 1: Given the informal nature of the meeting, the Presidency working paper has no official status and is intended only for those attending the meeting.

re 2: It is for the Commission, before drawing up proposals, to take the necessary steps (studies, seminars, consultation of specialists, etc.) to provide itself with information and data on the basis of which to frame its proposals.

re 3: Questions of institutional adjustments to the system laid down by the existing Treaties are being discussed at the Intergovernmental Conference currently under way, in which the Council has no part.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1909/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Directive 85/337/EEC (environmental impact assessments)

Which Member States have not yet fully transposed Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) into national law?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

As guardian of the Treaties the Commission sees that Community Directives are properly transposed into national law.

In the case of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Commission has instituted infringement proceedings against Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain for failure to comply with the Directive. These proceedings are currently under way.

In addition, the Court of Justice, in its judgment of 2 May 1996, ruled against Belgium for improper transposition of the Directive.

Examination of the conformity of the three new Member States' national laws transposing the Directive has yet to be completed.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1676/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Rabies

When does the Commission expect the UK to drop its quarantine restrictions in favour of verified anti-rabies vaccinations for domestic pets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)

The Commission is not in a position to state when the United Kingdom will drop its rabies quarantine restrictions.

Under existing Community rules, the United Kingdom is entitled to maintain its quarantine restrictions. The Commission understands that the government considered last year the report of the Agriculture select committee of the House of commons on rabies which recommended changes in the rules, in part due to the development of anti-rabies vaccinations. The governement concluded, however, that it would be premature to change the current arrangements.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1803/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Entitlement to unemployment benefit for second-generation emigrants

According to information supplied by the Portuguese community in France, the French-born children of citizens of EU Member States established in France are obliged to register for entitlement to unemployment benefit with the departments for 'foreign citizens', that is, citizens of third countries.

Given that this state of affairs is surely contrary to the principles of European citizenship and, therefore, to the principle of the equality of rights of citizens of any Member State, on the same basis as the citizens of the Member State where they are resident, can the Commission state whether it is aware of this situation and whether it intends to make representations to the French Government with a view to changing it?

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

Under the terms of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 ((OJ L 257, 19.10.1968. )), a national of a Member State who seeks employment in the territory of another Member State shall receive the same assistance there as that afforded by the employment offices in that State to their own nationals seeking employment.

This provision applies to any children of a Community worker who are entitled to unemployment benefit prior to finding their first job.

In the case of children of a Community worker who are entitled to unemployment benefit because they have lost their job, they are themselves workers and are covered by Article 7 of the same Regulation, under which a worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his or her nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards re-employment should the person concerned become unemployed.

If the Honourable Member would be so kind as to provide the Commission with detailed background information, the Commission will bring the matter to the French Government's attention.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1470/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

1. Is the Commission aware that people who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon for fleas have suffered serious phosphate ester poisoning?

2. When was this agent authorized for use on small animals?

3. Does Tiguvon comply with the EU authorization directives?

4. To what extent has the effect of Tiguvon on humans and animals and its interaction with other cholinesterase inhibitors been investigated?

5. Which institution examines the mode of action of ethical and freely available antiparasitics, especially for their harmlessness to humans and animals and their compatibility with the environment?

6. Is it possible for the burden of proof in the marketing of Tiguvon and other neurotoxins to be reversed throughout Europe where injury is suffered so that those who suffer chronic damage to their health may be appropriately compensated?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)

The Commission is not aware of the problems raised by the Honourable Member. It is currently gathering the necessary information from the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1620/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Involvement of less developed countries in the IGC

In drawing up its submissions to the IGC on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, what consultations and research has the Commission undertaken with governments and organizations in less developed countries?

Does the Commission agree that a CFSP will inevitably focus Europe's attentions on its own borders, and diminish the priority accorded to less developed countries world-wide?

Does the Commission plan any initiative in this respect?

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

The report of the reflection group, the Commission's opinion and the interim report of the Italian Presidency clearly identify the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) as a way to enhance the identity and increase the influence of the Union in world affairs. How to give the Union a clear external identity is certainly one of the major issues currently being discussed by the inter-governmental conference (IGC).

In the Commission's view, this requires certain traditional responsibilities of the Community in foreign and security matters to be up-dated to reflect today's conditions in world affairs, more substance and continuity to be granted to the CFSP and the various policy instruments to be used in a more coherent and coordinated way.

The main aim is therefore to make the Union an effective international partner. An enhanced CFSP would provide a framework in which priorities can be set and policies pursued. There is no reason to suppose that this will make the Union inward-looking, or have a negative impact on the Union's relations with less-developed countries.

The Union's partners around the world follow the IGC with interest and for its part the Commission keeps them informed and hears their views through the various forms of structured or bilateral dialogue which exist.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0992/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Study on the urban phenomenon under the Italian presidency

Will the Commission ensure its study on the Urban Phenomenon, requested by the Italian Presidency, includes specific assessment of the need for an urban competence in the Treaty on European Union?

Will it also ensure it prepares a specific text for such a Treaty amendment, to help inform Member States at the Intergovernmental Conference?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1996)

On the initiative of the Italian Presidency, the study 'Cities and Metropolitan regions between globalisation and sustainability: towards new goals of territorial development and increased employment' was carried out by the Politecnico di Milano. The formal report was presented at the informal meeting of ministers of regional policy and spatial planning which took place in Venice on 3-4 May 1996.

The Commission has not been directly involved in the study.

No assessment of the need for an urban competence in the Treaty is envisaged within the scope of the study and there are no indications at this stage that this issue will be discussed during the Intergovernmental conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1817/96 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Coordination of and incentives for European cultural institutes

Many Community Member States have established specific structures for the dissemination and promotion of their cultures and languages. Among such structures are the 'Alliance française' in France, the 'Goethe Institut' in Germany and the 'Dante Alighieri' in Italy.

1. Would not the Commission agree that, with due regard being shown for the autonomy of such institutes, funding should be provided with the specific purpose of providing 'first-aid' language courses for immigrants from non-Community countries who hold a valid residence permit, so as to facilitate their integration into society in the individual Member States?

2. Would not it also agree that it should draw up a single certification system for language studies so as to ensure that diplomas obtained from individual institutes in other Member States are valid throughout the Community?

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

1. Apart from the European programmes now under way in the field of education, the Commission does not have a legal basis whereby it can provide direct support to national institutions, such as those referred to by the Honourable Member, for the purpose of teaching the language of the host Member State to migrants from third countries.

Under the Socrates programme - Chapter II (Comenius), Action 2 - the Commission supports transnational cooperation projects aimed at helping the children of migrant workers to learn the language of the host Member State.

2. In Chapter III - Action 1 (Lingua) - of the Annex to Parliament and Council Decision No 819/95/EC of 14 March 1995 ((OJ L 87, 20.4.1995. )) establishing the Socrates programme, provision is made for Community financial assistance to be allocated to transnational projects aiming to improve methods and tools for the recognition of linguistic experience. The Honourable Member may obtain further details on this aspect in the Socrates and Lingua Guidelines for Applicants, Action D.

Furthermore, the Commission published at the end of 1995 a White Paper on 'Teaching and learning: towards the knowledge-based society' ((COM (95) 590 final. )), the first general objective of which is to encourage the acquisition of new knowledge. It is proposed to open up new methods of recognising skills, the idea being to pinpoint a number of well-defined areas of knowledge (including languages) and to launch a 'personal skills card' project; such a document should allow individuals to have their knowledge and know-how recognised as and when acquired.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1560/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: French Guyana's National Tropical Forests Park

In reply to an earlier question of 20 November 1995 (E-3129/95) ((OJ C 109, 15.4.1996, p. 26. )) concerning the possible Commission involvement in French Guyana's National Tropical Forests Park, the Commission replied that it has provided ECU 1.5 million for this project.

Is the Commission aware of the serious objections of the indigenous peoples living in the area, against the proposal?

Is the Commission aware that the actual proposal by the 'Comité de Pilotage' is completely opposite to the proposals made by ORSTOM and WWF/IUCN?

Has the Commission consulted with the indigenous peoples affected by the National Park proposal before deciding to participate in the funding, and what has been the outcome of these consultations?

Is the Commission willing to ask the French Government to review the whole concept of the National Park following the recommendations of environmental organizations and indigenous peoples, and how is the Commission going to improve the participation of indigenous peoples in the project?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

In its answer to Written Question No E-3129/95 the Commission stated that co-financing by the European Regional Development Fund of the project to create a tropical forest park in French Guiana was provided for under submeasure 6.3 of the Objective 1 single programming document (SDP) for French Guiana.

The Commission would point out that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the appraisal and final selection of projects proposed for Community co-financing under the programmes adopted are, in the case of France, the responsibility of the prefect of the region in question. The authorities concerned are of course required to take account of national and Community legislation in their appraisal of proposals.

Under the Structural Funds Regulation ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) a committee chaired in this case by the Guianese prefect, of which the Commission is a member, is responsible for ensuring the SDP is properly implemented and, inter alia, monitoring compliance with Community policies. The Commission will inform the committee's chair of the concerns expressed and ask for clarification of the points raised.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1340/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: EU funding for cycle paths

Will the Commission state how much in total of the funding provided by the EU for various transport projects during the last five years has been used for the construction of cycle paths? Will it also state which projects in which countries have received such funding?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)

Community aid to cycle tracks would normally fall within structural funds operational programmes in eligible areas, with implementation primarily the responsibility of the individual Member States. Given that this type of project is usually small in scale and, moreover, contained within wider-ranging development measures such as tourism or environmental improvement, it is difficult to provide details on individual schemes.

On the general issue of promoting cycling as a mode of transport, the Commission is funding two research projects under the Transport research technology and development programme which study measures to make cycling and walking attractive alternatives to short distance car trips. In its efforts to promote cycling, the Commission works closely with the European cyclists' federation.

The Commission also recognized the benefits of cycling in its Green Paper 'The citizen's Network: Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe' ((COM(95) 601. )). In particular better integration of the use of bicycles with public transport is particularly important, one example being the operation of bicycle centres at many Dutch railway stations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Beef storage costs

How high were the export subsidies for beef between 1990 and 1995 by year and Member State, broken down by:

1. livestock;

2. slaughtered animals (fresh and frozen);

3. processed beef?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1550/96, E-1551/96, E-1552/96 and E-1553/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat. The answers to written questions E-1550/96, E-1551/96 and E-1553/96 are taken from the financial report of the EAGGF - guarantee section, submitted each year to the budgetary authority.

The answer to written question E-1552/96 is simply that there is no aid for processing under the common organization of the beef and veal market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1777/96 by Hilde Hawlicek (PSE) and Michael Spindelegger (PPE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Guaranteeing high standards in children's TV programmes

In May 1996, the Commission received a memorandum from the Austrian broadcasting listeners' and viewers' representatives calling for guarantees of high standards in children's TV programmes.

So far, the need to protect children and young people has always been emphasized - as in the current review of the television directive - but the question of supporting home-produced children's programmes in the EU has never arisen. In order to oppose the development of a children's TV culture and at least counter the threat of an international centralization of the children's programme market, will the Commission say:

Whether EU children's programmes can be supported within the framework of the Media II programme or whether the Commission intends to pursue a different course in this field?

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

In response to the question regarding support for audiovisual programmes for children under the Media II programme, the Commission would make the following points:

- the decisions setting up the Media II programme (95/563/EC and 95/564/EC) ((OJ L 321, 30.12.1995. )) do not contain a formal reference to audiovisual programmes for children;

- the Commission does, however, accord special attention to works for young people. In particular in the context of the Media II programme it wishes to encourage both the production of works for children and wider distribution of these works between European countries (cinema and television distribution, video cassettes and multimedia).

This concern is given expression in the notices of calls for proposals issued for Development and Distribution (calls for proposals 3/96 ((OJ C 81, 19.3.1996. )), 4/96 ((OJ C 136, 8.5.1996. )) and 5/96 ((OJ C 150, 24.5.1996. ))), which contain the following sentence: 'Films and audiovisual programmes aimed at children and young people in general will be given special attention within the framework of this call for proposals.'

The selection of proposals received in response to these calls for proposals is still under way. The Commission can state, however, that as regards networks of cinemas showing European films (call for proposals 4/96) it is planned to support the Eurokids network of cinemas, which offer programmes and animated films for young people.

As part of its consumer policy, the Commission is according special attention to audiovisual media to enhance the awareness of young viewers. In 1995 it supported the production of an animated film for children entitled 'Célestin' concerning the prevention of accidents and leisure activities, and the quality of the programme was monitored by a steering committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1143/96 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Eureka evaluation report not available in all official languages

The Eureka evaluation report is available from the Commission in five languages: English, French, German, Italian and Spanish.

1. Why has this report not been translated into all 11 official languages?

2. Why is the Commission issuing the report in Spanish and Italian, but not in Dutch?

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

It is normal for EUREKA documents to be available in five languages (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish). However, the assessment report drawn up by the French Presidency in 1993 is available only in French and English, and the assessment reports drawn up under the Dutch (1991) and Swiss (1995) presidencies are only available in English by the decision of those same presidencies.

The Honourable Member is reminded that EUREKA is not a Community programme but a 25-member inter-governmental initiative where the Commission represents the Community. Thus the Commission is not involved in selecting the languages in which those reports are published but may, like any other EUREKA member, be contacted where documents and reports are requested.