ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1385/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: EU avocado production crisis

The EU avocado sector consists of some 8000 hectares of farms directly responsible for the livelihood of 10 000 families. The farmers' turnover is over Ptas 12 000 m and investment in agricultural property amounts to over Ptas 50 000 m.

In 1996, according to the statistics available to us, EU imports of this product from third countries rose by 22%, mostly from Mexico, the leading world producer, whose exports to the EU have risen by 43%. Exports of Spanish avocados to the other countries of the EU have fallen by 27%. In conjunction with the system of Community customs duties (3.5% during the Spanish avocado season and 6% for the rest of the year), this results in prices which mean that Spanish production is no longer viable.

Does the Commission intend to amend the customs system, which, in view of the periods for which it applies, does not appear to be intended to protect European produce?

Does it intend to take any steps to solve the crisis which has engulfed Community producers thanks to the mass imports of avocados from third countries, which could well completely overwhelm and destroy our market?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1384/96 and E-1385/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)

The Commission acknowledges that Community imports of avocados increased in 1994 and 1995 and last year amounted to a total of 105 552 tonnes. However, these increases follow two years of reduction, in which the Twelve in 1991 imported only 90 145 tonnes, and the relative increase over the period 1991-95 was no more than 16%.

Mexico accordingly became the Community's principal supplier of avocados in 1995. The increase in Mexican imports meant that the Community's second main supplier, Israel, saw its market share fall whilst sales by South Africa, the third supplier, remained at their previous level. These three countries account for almost 90% of Community imports.

Conventional customs duties on avocado imports are 7.5% from 1 June to 30 November and 4% during the rest of the year. ((Commission Regulation (EC) No 3009/95 of 22 December 1995 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff - OJ L 319, 30.12.1995. Product code: 0804 40. )) This product therefore receives greater protection during the Community production period.

Hence, the Commission does not see the Mexican imports in question as likely to disrupt the Community market and does not envisage specific measures in respect of the avocado production sector.

The Commission is nevertheless monitoring this market closely and would point out that the new provisions which the reform of the fruit and vegetables organization incorporates should provide the opportunity for measures capable of improving the competitiveness of Community producers.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 698/96 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Council. Mr Emerson and TACIS funding



Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0001



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Council (27 March 1996) Subject: Mr Emerson and TACIS funding Can the Council comment on the likely damage of the Michael Emerson affairs to the European Union's prestige in the Russian Federation and amongst other supporters of democratic and economic reform in Russia? Reply (19 November 1996) The Council has no information which could lead to the conclusion that the matter referred to by the Honourable Member might damage the European Union's prestige in the Russian Federation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2109/96 by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Alqueva dam

The Commission is now considering the possibility of financing a huge new dam, Alqueva, mostly justified by irrigation objectives. However, the cost of the irrigation component of the Alqueva project is many times higher than the cost of the dam itself. Without this component the project will fail to reach its main objectives.

Is the Commission planning to finance this huge follow-up project or has it received a commitment from the Portuguese authorities that it will do so?

Or will the Commission risk financing what is only the first part of the project without knowing where the huge amounts of money needed to continue it will come from?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)

Commission discussions on the possible financing of the Alqueva dam have not concluded. They take into account all aspects linked to carrying out the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2330/96 by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: BSE aid

By the end of the year the Commission will have spent ECU 1.5 billion to overcome the BSE crisis, including ECU 850 million in direct aid to beef producers.

1. What amount will be going to Belgium?

2. What is the breakdown in Community aid between beef producers and veal producers? Or is the decision taken independently by the governments of the Member States of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (27 September 1996)

Of the ECU 850 million set aside by the Community ((Council Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 of 8 July 1996 providing for additional payments to be made in 1996 with the premiums referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal and amending that Regulation (OJ L 175, 13 July 1996, p. 9). )) to compensate cattle farmers for the effects of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis, some ECU 30 million went to Belgium to pay compensation to producers.

It is up to the Belgian authorities to allocate that money, plus any national payments not to exceed an equivalent amount, in line with two distribution schemes laid down in the regulation. For further particulars the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's answer to written question E-1509/96 by Mr Musumeci. ((OJ C 305, 15.10.1996. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2118/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Establishment of liability in the area of free movement of goods with regard to marketing of meat-and-bone meal derived from offal of BSE-carrying cattle

The free movement of goods within the single market requires a number of guarantees for the consumer. If this market is to function properly, it is essential that technical manufacturing standards are adhered to and that manufacturers are held responsible for 'defective products', which would involve civil, and even criminal, liability.

To enable consumers to obtain justice, the Commission should provide assistance for consumer organizations and associations of cattle-breeders who have suffered as a result of animal feed contaminated by the agent which transmits BSE.

What can the Commission do? Could it draw up a guide on how to make compensation claims?

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

The Community has not yet established a right for consumer organisations to act in a case such as described in the question. A draft directive ((OJ C 107, 13.4.1996. )) and a related action programme on access to justice currently before the Parliament seek to establish some such rights.

Individual consumers can however explore whether there may be any liability under the terms of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products ((OJ L 210, 7.8.1985. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2216/96 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: China - nuclear tests and human rights violations

A number of environmentalist and human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Fare Verde, etc.) have been staging demonstrations in Italy in recent months in order to draw the attention of the public and national and international bodies both to the numerous Chinese nuclear tests (China has never complied with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and carried out its 44th underground nuclear test in June) and to the fact that 68 crimes carry the death penalty (imprisonment for reasons of conscience has led to downright oppression of the Tibetan minority).

Has the Commission formally expressed its disapproval to China on account of the nuclear testing and the continual human rights violations? If not, does it intend to take the necessary steps?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)

The Commission welcomes the recent adoption by the UN Security Council of the nuclear test ban treaty to which China reacted positively. As one of the nuclear powers it has been party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1992.

China and the EU have established a framework for regular dialogue on the issue of human rights in which all matters of concern to either party are broached in a constructive spirit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Kaleidoscope - my Written Question E-0187/96

The Commission will have noted that my aim is to obtain a more precise breakdown of the costs of administering the Kaleidoscope programme, with particular reference to staff.

1. In its answer to my Written Question E-0187/96 ((OJ C 161, 5.6.1996, p. 46. )) the Commission states, in paragraph 1, that the Kaleidoscope programme will be administered by a senior consultant, a junior consultant and a C/3 official, who will continue to report to the Head of Unit. In order to calculate the expenditure for the above staff, I would be grateful if the Commission could send me all relevant details, such as grades and salary increments.

2. How many outside staff have been brought in to support the three Commission officials and what are the resulting costs?

3. How can the Commission give an approximate figure of ECU 130 000 and in the same breath say 'it is difficult to give an exact figure'?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (20 September 1996)

1 and 2. In the framework of the 1996 Kaleidoscope programme, the Commission has employed the services of a senior consultant for six months (ECU 25 000), a junior consultant for one year (ECU 30 000), a C3 official (ECU 37 000) and seven external freelances for 3 months (ECU 21 000).

3. The Honourable Member will appreciate that the Kaleidoscope programme is in a process of constant and major change, and that the Commission has a limited number of staff to run it. From 1991 until 1995 it took the form of a pilot project open to the twelve - subsequently fifteen - Member States. It has only been organized as a Community programme since 1996, and is open, from 1997 onwards, to 30 countries (15 Member States, 3 EFTA/EEA countries, 10 central European countries, Cyprus and Malta). Moreover, the organization of the 1996 programme has been further complicated by its late adoption, which has compelled the Commission to compress its work into a very short space of time, relying on the efforts of all the staff of the unit concerned.

Therefore, although the Commission has made every effort to reply as fully as possible to the Honourable Member's questions, it should be noted that, for the reasons already given in replies to his previous questions (QE 332/95, ((OJ C 175, 10.7.1995. )) 2128/95 ((OJ C 340, 18.12.1995. )) and 187/96) the estimate of costs for 1994 remains indicative, and the expenditure for years to come may be subject to change. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the indicative financial statement which accompanied the initial proposal for the Kaleidoscope programme (COM (94) 356 final).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)

Subject: Air transport safety

It has recently become noticeable again that many air passengers are ignoring the regulations and bringing more than one piece of often bulky luggage into the cabin. In the event of an emergency landing or a panic caused by the aisles being blocked, this poses a safety threat for all travellers.

Is it not time to remind the airlines that they have a duty to implement the existing regulations?

Should not some thought be given to enacting a Community directive on this subject?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)

The safety issues of hand luggage in aircraft cabins are familiar to the Commission. There is however no evidence that limiting the number of pieces allowed would in itself improve safety, since aspects such as size, weight and storage are much more relevant. If, for example, carriers provide a convenient and adequately protected storage area in the cabin, there would be no reason to limit, as a matter of principle, the amount, size or weight of cabin luggage.

This explains why most Member States do not regulate this matter in detail, requiring only that airlines ensure an appropriate level of cabin safety.

Community legislation would only be considered if the current provisions and practices appeared insufficient to ensure the safety of the travelling public.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2325/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Pensions and equal opportunities

Following the submission to the European Parliament of Petition No 221/94 by a group of Italian women affected by Law No 503/95 (Article 4) which introduced the principle of the joint calculation of payments to husbands and wives, the EP's Committee on Petitions told the petitioners that it had several times requested information from the Italian Government about this issue, which is having an adverse effect on the progress so far achieved with regard to equality of opportunities and had asked the Italian Government, in its last letter of 4 May 1995, to answer the questions asked repeatedly within a month of receiving the letter.

Since a reply has still not been received, can the Commission take whatever steps it deems most appropriate to persuade the Italian Government to fulfil its obligations?

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

In response to the petition mentioned by the Honourable Member, submitted by six Italian women and alleging discrimination within the meaning of Directive 79/7/EEC ((OJ L 6, 10.1.1979. )) on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, the Commission asked the Italian Government for detailed information. The latter sent its reply, together with the relevant statutory texts, on 15 June 1995.

From the reply it emerges that Legislative Decree No 503 of 30 December 1992 - the subject of the petition - changed the existing pension system in Italy, notably by introducing more stringent requirements in regard to contributions. Article (2)(a), in particular, progressively extends the contribution period necessary for entitlement to the old-age pension. This principle applies to all insured persons, without discrimination by sex. However, the progressive raising of the retirement age, which the petitioners do not contest, retains the gap of five years between men and women which already existed in the previous system. This is consonant with the provisions of the Directive, which allows Member States to exclude the age of retirement from its scope.

From the dossier which the Italian workers have sent to the Parliament, it emerges that what they are complaining about specifically is discrimination between unmarried women and married women as regards entitlement to the minimum pension. In point of fact, Article 4 of the aforementioned Legislative Decree No 503/92 lays down new income thresholds for entitlement to the minimum pension, the spouse's income also being taken into consideration. Hence in the Commission's opinion these measures do not appear to infringe the principles laid down by Directive 79/7/EEC in that they are measures designed to rationalise the pension system that apply to all insured persons.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Award of public contracts in St Pölten, Lower Austria

The NÖPLAN Landhaus and Kulturbezirk projects in St Pölten were not awarded in accordance with the directives.

Which directives concerning public calls for tender were not observed?

What are the associated consequences for the Land of Lower Austria?

Will this endanger participation in EU programmes, in so far as they concern programmes for Lower Austria?

If so, which ones?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1996)

In the view of the Commission, the public procurement procedures followed in the case of the St. Pölten cultural and administrative centre involved a number of breaches of Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, ((OJ L 199, 9.8.1993. )) a breach of Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts ((OJ L 395, 30.12.1989. )) and a breach of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (free movement of goods).

Furthermore, the Lower Austrian law on public procurement, which came into effect only in the course of 1995, contained a specific provision excluding in practice the St. Pölten project from the scope of the rules it laid down. Following criticism from the Commission, the law has now been amended.

In connection with the St. Pölten project, the Commission has initiated proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty against Austria, which is responsible under Community law for the actions of Lower Austria. The Commission has also decided to refer this case to the Court of Justice.

In addition to the action taken by the Commission, Lower Austria may have to suffer the consequences of measures taken directly by aggrieved tenderers. They could, firstly, initiate review procedures through the relevant Lower Austrian authorities. Secondly, they could exercise any rights they may have to damages, such as loss of earnings, and obtain compensation under Austrian civil law.

The co-financing of projects proposed by Lower Austria in the context of EU programmes will not be placed in jeopardy as a result of the St. Pölten affair.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2323/96 by Carlo Ripa di Meana (V) to the Commission (27 August 1996)

Subject: Multi-fund operational programmes in Sardinia

The Region of Sardinia is apparently using 60 billion from the European Union's multi-fund operational programmes (MOPs) to carry out public works and building projects in protected areas of the island, although 7 years have passed since the adoption of Regional Framework Law No 31/1989 and the regional Council has not yet set up any nature reserves.

Does the Commission not consider that it should make the allocation of funding dependent on the prior establishment of the nature reserves in Sardinia and that it is inappropriate that Community funding officially earmarked for nature reserves, which do not in fact yet exist, is being used to carry out public works and construction work, in particular in the areas of Sinis-Montiferru, Monte Arci and Giara in the province of Oristano?

Answer given by Ms Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 October 1996)

The multi-fund operational programme for the Region of Sardinia, approved by the Commission on 25 November 1994, includes measures in respect of the 'nature reserve system' to the tune of ECU 73 million, including ECU 44 million from the European Regional Development Fund.

These measures are to be carried out within the region, in particular in 81 communes situated in the areas designated as nature reserves. They are not, therefore, directly linked to the creation of these reserves. The programme emphasizes environmental protection and small-scale infrastructure work e.g. renovation of buildings of artistic and cultural interest, work on disused mines and improvements to the water supply system.

The Commission will ensure that all action co-financed by the structural funds in the regional parks of Sardinia is carried out in accordance with Community environmental legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2607/96 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)

Subject: Animal experiments

Under Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )) on animals used for experimental purposes, experiments shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practically available.

Thousands of primates are still being sent to Europe from Indonesia, the Philippines, China, Mauritius or Barbardos, 80% of which die before arrival. Invitro techniques which can be used to achieve the objective sought often exist but these are longer and more costly than the use of monkeys.

Can the Commission say whether the arguments put forward by companies and scientists concerning the length of time and costs involved constitute an acceptable justification for exemptions to the above Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1996)

Article 7(2) of Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1996. )) states that an experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available.

The use of primates is considered essential for biomedical research, and there are still insufficient suitable alternatives available.

The Commission has no information about the mortality of the animals during transport and cannot therefore comment on the figure of 80% quoted by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: Use of sewage sludge on agricultural land

Can the Commission indicate under what conditions it would accept the use of sewage sludge for agricultural land application? Does it intend to set any European standards for the use of sludge, in either liquid or dried form, for agricultural or other purposes?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1996)

The use of sewage sludge in agriculture is governed by Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture ((OJ L 181, 4.7.1986. )) which, amongst other things, lays down limit values for heavy metals in the soil and in sludge and for annual quantities of heavy metals which may be introduced into soil.