ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2505/96 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)

Subject: Commission reports on school provision for gypsy and traveller children and for children of occupational travellers

What is the state of progress of two important Commission reports, mention in the Council resolutions of 22 May 1989, on school provision for gypsy and traveller children ((OJ C 153, 21.6.1989, p. 3. )) and for children of occupational travellers ((OJ C 153, 21.6.1989, p. 1. ))?

In the answer to my previous question (P-0090/96 ((OJ C 161, 5.6.1996, p. 39. )) on this subject the Commission accepted there had been a delay, but that translation would be complete in February of this year and publication would then follow Commission approval. I understand that translation was in fact only recently completed, and thus the process has once again been delayed from the initial deadline of the end of 1993.

Joint answer to Written Questions P-2505/96 and P-2507/96 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1996)

In its answer to the written question P-90/96, the Commission informed the Honourable Member of the schedule for finalising the translations and the procedures for adopting and publishing the two reports, dealing respectively with school provision for gypsy and traveller children and school provision for children of occupational travellers. These reports, covering four years of intense work in this field (1991-94), analyse and evaluate the policies conducted by the Member States and the Commission, and contain proposals for developing Europe-wide cooperation in this connection.

The translations are now ready and the two reports should be adopted shortly by the Commission. They will thus be presented to Parliament and the Council in the next few weeks.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2042/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)

Subject: Pay statistics

Does the Commission have statistics to enable accurate comparisons to be made between men's and women's pay in the Member States?

Disparities between men's and women's pay in the Union can only be eliminated if the exact figures are known. Compiling detailed statistics on pay should therefore be a top priority.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 October 1996)

As confirmed by the Essen, Madrid and Cannes European Councils, the question of equal opportunities for women and men constitutes, along with the fight against unemployment, a priority issue for the European Union. Accordingly, the Statistical Office of the European Communities brought out, in 1995, a publication giving a statistical analysis of the situation of women living in the European Union.

This publication shows in figures how women live and work, and how their situation compares with that of men. It highlights the main areas where inequalities continue to exist between women and men. One of the sections looks at the situation of women in working life and includes data on pay differentials between women and men. It should, however, be noted that the available statistics show average earnings and are therefore not suited to giving precise information on the relationship between pay and the individual characteristics of employees (e.g. sex, age, occupation, education, length of service and economic activity performed). Only a few Member States have the necessary statistics for analysing in greater depth women's and men's pay and the differences between them. In any case, such figures reflect the national situations and must not be compared, since they are not harmonised on a European scale.

Faced with this lack of information at European level, the Commission organised, in 1995, a survey on the structure and distribution of earnings, whereby it will be possible in the future to analyse precisely, among other things, pay differentials between men and women. This survey, covering more than 2 million employees, concerns the reference year 1995 and is at present being carried out in all the Member States (plus Norway and Iceland).

A further source of statistics, the European Community Household Panel, which is designed to monitor, from 1994 onwards, a sample of households at European level, contains questions on earnings. Subject to certain conditions, it makes for an overall approach to analysis of earnings; the results of the first wave (1994) are already available.

It should also be noted that provision is made, in the fourth medium-term Community action programme on equal opportunities for women and men (1996-2000), for reinforcing the statistical machinery in the field of equal pay.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/96 by Wolfgang Nußbaumer (NI) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: Trade relations with China

To what extent can the Commission oblige the People's Republic of China to comply with international agreements (e.g. on the protection of intellectual property, anti-dumping) that it has signed?

What can be done to prevent European companies suffering competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis other foreign competitors when contracts are awarded if disagreement between the European Union and China, or between individual Member States and China, gives rise to discords which threaten economic relations?

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

Trade relations between the Community and China are based on the 1985 Trade and Cooperation Agreement, in which the parties commit themselves to the harmonious development of their trade. In the event of trade being disrupted, the Agreement provides for consultations between the two parties. Such consultations may, for example, take place at the regular meetings of the Joint Committee or be convened specially. In addition, the new Community Regulation on trade barriers (Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94) ((OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, as amended in OJ L 41 of 23.2.1995. )) enables the Commission to take defensive action against restrictive trading practices by third countries and to enforce international rules on trade.

In its communication on a new long-term policy towards the People's Republic of China, ((COM(95) 279 final. )) the Commission stresses the importance of economic reform in China and proposes a range of cooperation activities to back that reform. The increasing introduction of market principles and the further opening-up of the Chinese market will cause economic considerations to play an ever greater role in the award of contracts. China's accession to the World Trade Organization is a major step in that direction.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2251/96 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (9 August 1996)

Subject: Import of non-refillable lighters

1. What is the reason for the joint assessment of Mexico, the Philippines and Thailand in respect of imports of non-refillable gas lighters? What specific (economic) evidence is needed to prove that imports from these countries really are competing significantly with each other and with similar EU products in order to assess the cumulative effect of these imports?

2. Given the differences in the definition of 'damage' in a preliminary inquiry and in the original inquiries, is cumulation permitted by law, in particular if the product from one of the sources is stable and has no direct impact on European industry?

3. When it assesses price competition, how does the Commission take account of the obvious major differences between the products in respect of quality and reputation?

4. If imports from many different countries are able, within a short space of time, to take the place of imports from those countries which are affected by the anti-dumping measures, if smuggling is not controlled and competition and causality are negligible, why would it be in the interests of the EU to adhere to the existing anti-dumping measures for lighters from individual countries?

5. In the light of these circumstances, why does the Commission feel it is necessary to close off part of the EC market and to deprive the European consumer of a free choice between products from different countries through anti-dumping duties or undertakings in respect of a review of prices?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (20 September 1996)

The questions asked by the Honourable Member refer to anti-dumping investigations still under way; as the conclusions still have to be drawn and so cannot be communicated to the Member States or officially divulged to the parties concerned, the Commission regrets that it cannot give the details requested.

The parties concerned who have already made their views known to the Commission or sent their comments in writing will be informed in due time of all the preliminary conclusions on the matter and will be asked to state their points of view. The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the remarks then expressed by all the parties concerned will be examined and will be taken into account wherever there are grounds for doing so.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Council (20 May 1996)

Subject: Right to vote in local elections in Luxembourg

Article 1 of the Luxembourg law of 28 December 1995 uses the derogation provided for in Article 12(a) of Council Directive 94/80/EC ((OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 38. ))requiring a minimum of six years' residence and domicile in the last seven years. This law came into force on 1 January 1996, and Article 5 (indent 4) thereof lays down that any request to be entered in the electoral roll must be submitted 'avant le 1er avril de l'année en cours'. Finally, the electoral census law lays down that elections are to be held on the basis of the electoral rolls revised during the year prior to the elections.

Taking these regulations in conjunction with the six years of residence which have to have elapsed before the voter can be put on the electoral roll on 1 April, it would be necessary to add the whole period up until the elections of the following year.

Taking into account that the Luxembourg local elections are scheduled to take place in September 1999, the six years in question would in fact be seven and a half!

The derogation provided for under Article 12(a) of the Directive fixes a maximum period for prior residence which the Member State in question is entitled to demand ('minimum period which may not be longer'). The Luxembourgish law, or its interpretation, therefore needs to be made compatible with the Directive.

I would therefore ask what interpretation or assessment should be made of the Luxembourgish law, bearing in mind that it can not violate the Directive which, moreover, forbids the Member States to adopt measures which are not 'adequate, necessary or proportional' to the objectives pursued, or are contrary to the Treaty and the general principles of law (Article 5(3))?

What measures is the Council going to take to prevent what would be a serious violation of the EU Treaty and a practical denegation of European citizenship and yet another case of discrimination exacerbating the exceptional arrangements already in force for Luxembourg?

Reply (29 October 1996)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Court of Justice alone to interpret Community law and that it falls to the Commission to watch over the proper implementation and/or transposition of Community law into national law, taking any legal action if it deems it necessary, against Member States which it considers not to be complying with that law.

The Council would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the reply that Mr Monti gave on 2 July 1996 on behalf of the Commission to the same question.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1664/96 by Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) and Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Beef consumption

What is the estimated percentage slump in beef consumption in the countries of the European Union since the 'mad cow' crisis?

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

The crisis caused by bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has resulted in a rapid, continuing decline in the market in beef and veal. Consumption has dropped sharply (by some 20% to 30% in some Member States), the prices paid to producers have fallen and large amounts have been bought into intervention.

It is very difficult to put forward figures for the drop in beef and veal consumption in the Community, since the impact of the crisis differs greatly depending on the Member State, the products involved and the period covered. It is to be expected that Member States where cases of BSE have been recorded are the worst affected; the same applies to processed products and offal, consumption of which has dropped more than the consumption of the highest quality cuts and meat guaranteed by a quality label, sales of which have even increased overall. The fall in internal demand was greatest in the weeks immediately following the start of the crisis at the end of March and is now very gradually becoming less acute. The exceptional measures involving the slaughter of animals and destruction of by-products and meal through which BSE could be transmitted and the measures which will very shortly be taken to improve the means of identifying animals and meat labelling should help to limit the overall drop in beef and veal consumption in the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2059/96 by Markus Ferber (PPE) and Detlev Samland (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)

Subject: Payment of contracts concluded under the THERMIE programme

SMEs tell us repeatedly that contracts concluded under the THERMIE programme are processed only very slowly. Evidently, contractually guaranteed payments are paid not within two months but often after three to six months - in other words, from 12 to 18 months after the work was carried out. This would indeed be an intolerable burden for SMEs which are as a rule financially weaker than big companies.

Can the Commission provide information without delay on the following questions:

1. What is the situation as regards the settlement of accounts relating to OPET contracts, which were funded under the THERMIE Regulation that expired on 31 December 1994 and on the basis of which the work on accompanying measures was carried out during the relevant period?

2. What is the Commission's explanation for the delays in the payments it is due to make? Are those delays connected with the inappropriate settlement of accounts on a real-cost basis, criticized by the Court of Auditors in chapter 9, paragraph 9.8 of its draft report for 1995?

3. What will the Commission do to put an end to this deplorable state of affairs?

4. Does this Commission have any information about whether the delays in payment have adversely affected participating SMEs, even to the point of insolvency?

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

1. The expenditure on OPET (Organizations for the promotion of energy technology) contracts funded under the Thermie programme is the subject of an audit. The complex structure of the OPET network and the large variety of projects supported have made it necessary to carry out this audit, which is being conducted with the assistance of the financial controller of the Commission and an external consultant. To avoid penalizing companies, OPET contracts have been amended to allow the payment of up to 95% of the Commission's financial contribution to expenditure submitted. The results of the audit should be available soon.

2. Contracts on a real-cost basis are used where large contributions are involved. This type of contract enables the Commission to properly check the accuracy of the expenditure submitted by the contractor. However, the option of contracts based on a negotiated, flat-rate amount can be considered in some cases for smaller amounts.

3. Under the Joule-Thermie programme (1995-98), type B associated measures, which used to be the subject of OPET contracts, are now covered by contracts for a smaller amount and a shorter duration, thus allowing better control of the funds granted by the Commission.

4. The Commission is not aware of any contractors having been adversely affected by participating in the Thermie programme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1769/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: Rabid dogs

Can the Commission reveal how many rabid dogs going into quarantine have been detected at EU borders each year for the last five years?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)

There have been no cases detected at Community borders during the period mentioned by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1719/96 by Stelios Argyros (PPE) to the Commission (25 June 1996)

Subject: Community support framework for Greece - Athens Concert Hall Foundation (OMMA)

As part of the Community support framework for Greece for the period 22 November 1994 - 31 December 1999, the Commission approved public funding of ECU 20 million, including Community ERDF funding amounting to ECU 11 million, for the 'Athens Conference and Cultural Centre' under measure 2.7 of the culture subprogramme.

Has the Commission established to what extent the objectives and scope of the measure concerning the concert hall are the result of a serious study into the desirability and feasibility of such a project? Has the Commission investigated whether it would be desirable and possible to obtain private funding for this project?

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

When the operational programme for tourism and culture was negotiated, the Commission asked for an assessment of the viability of the planned conference centre. The results of the study carried out were satisfactory. The cost-benefit analysis required under ERDF rules ((Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, as amended: OJ L 193, 31.7. 1993. )) has still to be presented by the body responsible for the project.

As far as the Commission knows, private sector funding for the building of the concert hall has already been secured.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1814/96 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Deriving the maximum benefit from and rehabilitating the archaeological, artistic and cultural heritage of the Mediterranean area

The conclusions of the Euro-Mediterranean ministerial meeting on the cultural heritage held recently in Bologna highlighted the need for a new Euro-Mediterranean approach contrasting with the hitherto Euro-centric attitude to cultural affairs which was clearly inappropriate to the long-awaited dialogue between the Mediterranean seaboard countries.

Given that the Mediterranean countries share the same cultural problems in connection with rehabilitating, preserving, protecting and deriving the maximum benefit from age-old civilizations which are a universal heritage shared by the whole of mankind, what practical measures does the Commission intend to promote - particularly in the vitally important archaeological field - with a view to rehabilitating and preserving the heritage of the past, while showing proper respect for the cultural identities of the modern-day inhabitants of the area?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)

The safeguarding and enhancement of the archaeological heritage was one of the main themes of the work of the Euro-Mediterranean ministerial meeting in Bologna. Several proposals for specific projects in this area were considered at preparatory workshops in Arles, Berlin, Amman and Bologna. They included not only Euro-Mediterranean cooperation for the conservation and restoration of the archaeological heritage, the transfer of know-how, the continuing training of heritage professionals and the introduction of common information and communication systems but also the familiarization of the authorities, the general public and school children with the value of the cultural heritage. The Commission, while complying with the principle of subsidiarity, will support the most promising measures of the Member States and countries of the Mediterranean basin.

Moreover, the Commission would like to emphasize that, as part of the preparatory measures launched in 1996 for the implementation of the Raphael programme, one of the main themes of the work had been the safeguarding and enhancement of the European archaeological heritage. This pilot project was open to participation by the associated countries of Eastern and Central Europe, Cyprus and Malta, and to cooperation with other non-member countries which have concluded association and cooperation agreements including cultural clauses with the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1962/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: BSE

Further to my Question E-0979/96 ((OJ C 297, 8.10.1996, p. 59. )), is the Commission confident that all cases of BSE within the EU are being properly identified by the farmers and vets concerned, and that all such incidences are being notified to the national authorities and the Commission as required by Council Directive 82/894/EEC? ((OJ L 378, 31.12.1982, p. 58. ))

What practical steps has the Commission taken to ensure that the existing notification system is actually working?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was made notifiable within the Community by Commission Decision 90/134/EEC ((OJ L 76, 22.3.1990. )) amending Council Directive 82/894/EEC ((OJ L 378, 31.12.1982. )). All Member States have confirmed that they have implemented Decision 90/134/EEC. Furthermore, the Commission has conducted training courses on the detection of BSE for experts in the Member States to ensure that diagnostic capabilities are sufficient throughout the Community. The scientific veterinary committee has drawn up detailed protocols for the laboratory diagnosis of BSE.

Commission Decision 94/474/EC ((OJ L 194, 29.7.1994. )) requires any animal which shows clinical signs of BSE during inspection prior to slaughter to be detained and its brain to be examined for evidence of BSE. As with other animal diseases, a 100% detection rate of BSE cannot be guaranteed since the clinical signs vary, there are several causes for nervous disorders and the animal may die before the clinical signs appear.

The application of the rules on a day-to-day basis is the responsibility of the authorities of the Member States. The Commission has no reason to suppose that diagnosed cases of BSE are not being reported by them. There is no practical method whereby administrations, including the Commission, could ensure that all suspect cases are reported to the authorities. This relies on the goodwill of the farmer which is dependent, at least in part, on the compensation available balanced against the possible penalties. Member States are able to provide compensation for the eradication of BSE and may ask the Commission for Community financial assistance.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1924/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)

Subject: The Cohesion Fund and Spain

Can the Commission confirm the accuracy of the figures quoted below?

1. Spain received ECU 1 183 million from the Cohesion Fund in 1995.

2. Forty-eight per cent of the above amount was used to co-finance environmental projects, and the remainder for transport infrastructure projects.

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

The 1 184 Mecu commitment appropriations from the Cohesion fund in favour of Spain for the year 1995 are as follows:

>TABLE>