ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0517/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Unreasonable delays in the complaints procedure

'Dansk Industri' has carried out a survey which concludes that, of the 589 Danish export undertakings exporting to the EU 90, have recently encountered illegal technical barriers to trade. It is taking years to deal with their complaints.

The survey shows that many Danish undertakings are not even bothering to lodge complaints. This sluggishness in dealing with complaints is a problem both for the development of the single market and confidence in European Union system.

How long does it take to deal with a complaint, and why does it take so long?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1996)

The Commission is fully aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. The examination of generally complex cases takes time and, if too protracted, can be detrimental to the credibility of action taken by it. The Commission would point out, however, that the infringement procedure is aimed entirely at ensuring that the Member State complained of rectifies the situation.

The Commission is currently looking into ways of improving and, in particular, speeding up infringement procedures in the light of experience to date. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, it has also emphasized that 'the means available to it to enforce Community law should be made more effective, notably as regards the internal market.' ((Commission opinion of 28 February 1996, 'Reinforcing political union and preparing for enlargement', COM(96)90 final. ))

The Commission would point out that redress for infringements of Community law can always be sought before national courts. Furthermore, as was made clear in a recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, ((Judgment of 5 March 1996 in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, not yet published. )) reparation for loss or damage caused by breaches of Community law that are attributable to Member States can be obtained through this type of action.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0374/96 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Council (14 February 1996)

Subject: Turkish aggression against an EU Member State

The latest Turkish aggression in the Aegean, challenging the sovereign rights of an EU Member State and making claims on its territory - and in doing so violating international treaties - has brought Greece and Turkey to the brink of war. It has also brought the EU's ability to defend its external borders into sharp focus.

What will the Council do to compel Turkey (having regard to that country's association with the EU and the recent decision on customs union) to comply with international treaties, end its formal threats of war against Greece (statements by Ciller and Baykal) and prevent any repetition of acts such as the landing on the island of Imia and Turkish warships firing on Greek fishing-boats?

Joint Reply (11 June 1996)

The Council Presidency made a statement on the conflict between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea before the European Parliament on 14 February 1996. According to it the Union cannot fail to be concerned by the latest instances of friction involving, on the one hand, a Member State with which exists fundamental and strong solidarity and, on the other hand, a neighbouring country which has a key part to play in the region, and with which Europe has for decades enjoyed a relationship of dialogue and collaboration.

The Presidency noted that the matter had not been officially brought before the European Union. Accordingly, it had not undertaken any formal intervention. However, the Presidency had decided, while maintaining all appropriate contacts with Athens, to open up a channel of communication through relevant embassies that would enable it to keep in close touch with Turkey right from the initial stages of the crisis. The Presidency's aim was to promote a peaceful solution of the conflict and the normalization of bilateral relations; the first step should be to agree on a methodology to be followed in pursuit of this aim, paying special attention to the possibility of appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague or international arbitration, or a combination of these or other means.

Further, Italy was endeavouring to meet Greece's request to trace the relevant legal texts, which date back to 1932 and 1947, in a spirit of maximum solidarity with a fellow member of the European Union.

In addition, the Council would like to remind, that if need be, any member of the Council or the Commission can request for inclusion of this item on the agenda of the meeting.

It is in this framework that the Council can best contribute to confidence building between a Member State and a close cooperation partner.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0419/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Council (29 February 1996)

Subject: Turkish provocation in the Aegean

The islet of Imia belongs to the Greek State and, more specifically, it forms part of the Dodecanese group of islands, pursuant to the Italian-Turkish agreement of 1932 and the 1947 Treaty of Paris when the Dodecanese were ceded to Greece.

Nevertheless, as part of its constant policy of contesting the status of the Aegean, the Turkish Government is taking action to claim the islet of Imia. The Greek Government has protested to Turkey and has duly informed the Council of Ministers.

What does the Council propose to do in support of the sovereign rights of an EU Member State?

Joint Reply (25 June 1996)

The General Affairs Council discussed the situation in the Aegean in February and expressed concern at the recent developments, which affect the Union as a whole and its relations with Turkey.

The Presidency of the Council called on the parties to continue to exercise restraint and to refrain from any action liable to increase tension and from any demonstration of armed force.

The Presidency of the Council also encouraged Greece and Turkey to establish between them a crisis-prevention mechanism and considered that the dispute and the territorial issues should be settled solely by the process of law, i.e. by the International Court of Justice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: EU incentives for good animal welfare farming practices

The failure of the EU to agree on many basic animal welfare issues can only be described as disappointing. In the agricultural area, there are nevertheless many farmers who would be willing to introduce better animal rearing practices but do not have the necessary funds to do so.

Is the Commission willing to look into the possibility of using structural funding in agriculture to compensate and encourage farmers to reach the highest animal welfare standards?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)

The Community has, since 1974, adopted legislation on the protection of animals on farms, during transport and at the time of slaughter. A declaration annexed to the EC Treaty, specifically calls upon the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, as well as the Member States, when drafting and implementing Community legislation on the common agricultural policy, transport, the internal market and research, to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals. In its proposals to the Council in the field of animal protection the Commission has always sought the highest practicable standards.

Concerning programmes under the structural funds, the Commission has already agreed, with the Member States involved, a number of specific measures to promote animal welfare. For example in some objective 1 programmes the Commission has approved co-financed measures to secure improvements in the welfare in particular of laying hens, pigs, and bovines. In addition, specific provision exists under the objective 5(a) (agricultural structures) measures to allow both Community and state aid investment in animal welfare projects even in those sectors where investment is normally excluded.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Statistics on laboratory animal use

Would the Commission confirm that steps have now been taken to ensure an improvement in the collection and presentation of statistics on laboratory animal use in Member States, and indicate when the next set of statistics will be published and for what year?

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

Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )) requires Member States to collect, and as far as possible periodically make publicly available the statistical information on the use of animals in experiments, and to provide a suitable summary of the information collected.

No mention is made of the model and type of statistical tables to be used. However an agreement was reached on the use of statistical tables from the Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of vertebrate animals used in experiments. While certain Member States were able to use these tables, others were not, and those having failed to implement the Directive in spite of the infringement proceedings taken by the Commission did not have a legal basis to require the collection of these statistics.

To improve this situation, the Commission, with the cooperation and assistance of the Member States, started work in 1990 on more detailed tables in order to clarify the situation on the use of laboratory animals. With the help of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM), a definitive set of tables accompanied by an explanatory glossary of terms has now been agreed.

The Commission will now request that all Member States fill in the tables in 1997 with data from 1996. The final result will then be reported to the Council and the Parliament. If this exercise does not succeed, the Commission will use other means in order to reach the necessary results, and may consider proposing an amendment to the Directive in order to stipulate not only that the reporting of the statistics be considered obligatory, but also the type of tables to be used.

In the present situation the Directive does not allow for sanctions of the Member States which report differently or use different statistical tables.

The Commission would in addition refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-482/96 by Mr Crampton ((OJ C 185 of 25.6.1996, p. 65. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Organizations dealing with racism

Does the Commission have a list of consultative bodies which it uses on issues concerning racism? If so, how can this list be expanded to include groups representative of grassroots organizations across Europe?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)

The Commission does not have a list of consultative bodies which it uses on issues concerning racism. However, the Commission maintains a regular dialogue with the Migrants' forum on these and other issues. Opportunities to broaden the basis of such consultation by including further organisations are presently being considered, in the context of the preparation of the European year against racism.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)

Subject: Ecofin meeting of 19 June 1995

In the conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting of 19 June 1995 on combating wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources, the following paragraph appears under item 3, headed 'In partnership':

'in the context of greater cooperation between Member States and the Court of Auditors, give an appropriate response to the Court's observations'.

Can the Council explain what constitutes, in its judgment, an appropriate response? Does this mean that the Council would accept the criticisms which the Court of Auditors makes of the absence of reliable auditing of the spending of Community funds? Will this context of greater cooperation involve collaboration, which is currently non-existent, between national courts of auditors and the Court of Auditors?

Joint Reply (13 June 1996)

1. As it has already stated in the comments accompanying its recommendation on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the 1994 budget, it is the Council's wish that in the context of the Court's annual reports Member States should be given the opportunity to reply to the Court's comments. It is essential, in the interests of closer cooperation between the Member States and the European institutions, and in particular with the Court of Auditors, that the administrations be given this opportunity to reply in good time; in this connection, the Council takes the view that close contacts on specific issues can only improve the effect of controls and their follow-up.

The Council's position on the Court of Auditor's observations in its annual report and in its special reports is detailed in the comments accompanying the abovementioned Recommendation which was adopted on 11 March 1996. The Honourable Member should refer to it for the Council's comments on individual areas of Community budget expenditure and on the control systems for each area. Generally speaking, the Council supports the Court's recommendations and calls upon the Commission to act on them to ensure that Community expenditure is effected in a manner consistent with the interests of the European Union.

2. Regarding collaboration between the courts of auditors of the Member States and the European Court of Auditors, the Council recommended in its 'Act of 26 July 1995' ((OJ No C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 48. )) the adoption by the Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, of the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests. Article 2 of the Convention provides that each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that fraud affecting the European Communities' financial interests, and participating in, instigating, or attempting such conduct, are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, including, at least in cases of serious fraud, penalties involving deprivation of liberty which can give rise to extradition.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1066/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Proposed anti-dumping proceedings (96/C 50/04)

Has the Commission revised its intention to initiate anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey in the light of evidence supplied to it by the Textile Finishers Association, and the submission on behalf of the dyers and finishers Naylor Jennings?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)

The anti-dumping procedure concerning unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey was initiated on 21 February 1996 after a complaint, submitted on behalf of the Community cotton producers by Eurocoton, containing sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping and injury, was lodged with the Commission on 8 January 1996.

In accordance with Article 21 of the Basic anti-dumping regulation ((Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22.12.1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community - OJ L 56, 6.3.1996. )), the Commission will ensure that the views and submissions of all interested parties to the case, including those of the Textile finishers association and the company Naylor Jennings, are taken into account in determining if the Community interest is served by the introduction of measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0659/96 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Plant health checks on imports of firewood

For some time direct suppliers in Austria's eastern neighbours have been selling cheap firewood direct to private households and small firms on a massive scale, delivering direct using small trucks. After the changes in the law following membership of the EU there have been no plant health inspections at the border, although the logs are then stored in the private households until the following spring, which allows infested timber to spread pests and plant diseases unchecked. Commercial timber importers are by contrast obliged at least to carry out plant health checks on their premises and to obey the relevant instructions, so that some minimum protection of the local flora may be assumed.

Is the Commission aware that for some time operators in Austria's eastern neighbours have been supplying private households and small undertakings in Austria with cheap firewood on which there have been no plant health checks?

Does this problem exist in other EU Member States?

What is the Commission's opinion on the dangers to our plant life of these direct imports of infested timber?

What action will the Commission take to prevent the spread of pests and plant diseases by these imports?

What avenues are open to Member States affected by these imports, and Austria in particular?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1996)

The Commission has no knowledge of the developments referred to by the Honourable Member, as regards the sale of cheap firewood from Central European countries direct to customers in certain Member States without any plant health checks.

The Commission recognizes the risks posed by such imports into the Community in the absence of plant health checks. Protective measures against the introduction into the Member States of organisms harmful to plants or plant products, and the spread of such organisms in the Community, are provided for in Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976, ((OJ L 26, 31.1.1977. )) as amended, particularly Annexes IV and V (which covers plants, plant products, and other objects subject to plant health inspections).

Whilst certain derogations are provided for in Council Directive 94/13/EC of 29 March 1994, ((OJ L 92, 9.4.1994. )) firewood imports are generally required to undergo plant health inspections in the consignor country if the wood in question is covered by Council Directive 77/93/EEC, and a plant health certificate issued by that country must be produced with the goods. Member States are required to check compliance with the rules when the goods enter the Community.

The Commission has noted the developments referred to by the Honourable Member, and has asked the Office for Veterinary and Plant-Health Inspection and Control to investigate.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0679/96 by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Council (18 March 1996)

Subject: Import quotas for ceramics from China

Imports from third countries of cheap ceramics which are copies of European designs pose a threat to European jobs and the European economy.

For example, Chinese copies of Villeroy & Boch plates have been launched on the European market at a fortieth of the original sales price.

What measures will be taken to counter this fraud? Will import quotas for Chinese ceramics be revised downwards if such actions are repeated?

What is the situation concerning the Commission's proposal to increase quotas for China by 10 per cent? Would such an increase not pose a direct threat to our ceramics industry and to jobs in the industry?

Reply (25 June 1996)

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994, which is currently in force, lays down common rules for imports from certain third countries, including the People's Republic of China. Annex II thereof lays down quotas for certain products originating in China which are applicable, inter alia, to ceramic tableware or kitchenware.

2. In its December 1995 report to the Council on the quantitative quotas applied under the above Regulation, the Commission felt, in spite of the strong pressure within the Community to liberalize imports of these products, that the system of quotas on imports from China should be maintained, especially for porcelain and ceramic tableware. It is in the light of these considerations that the Council has decided on a 5% increase in the said quotas for these products.

3. Furthermore, the Council would make the point that in the said report the Commission also dealt with the problems of fraud referred to by the Honourable Member, and felt that such frequent occurrences of fraud were an additional factor in the distortion of conditions of competition. However, the Council would point out that the Community has means of combating such fraud, notably on the basis of the basic Council Regulation (No 3295/94). The Council also wishes to draw attention to the fact that China is currently conducting negotiations on accession to the WTO. Once such accession takes effect, the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement will also have to apply to China.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0740/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Community initiatives (ADAPT)

When 'Calls for Tender' are published by the Commission in the Official Journal for EU programmes and funding opportunities, the deadline for submitting applications is usually within two or three months.

In the context of the Community initiative ADAPT which is aimed at the SME sector, this time scale does not give sufficient time for those businesses who cannot afford extra staff to prepare a bid.

Does the Commission therefore intend to extend this time between publishing 'Calls for Tender' and the deadline for submitting proposals?

Answer given by M. Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 April 1996)

The calls for proposals under the Adapt Community initiative are launched exclusively by the Member State authorities responsible for the European social fund. There are no calls for proposals at Community level and therefore no announcements in the Official journal.

The Commission collaborates closely with the Member State authorities to coordinate the timetable for such calls for proposals. In 1995 (the first call under Adapt), Member State authorities generally allowed 3.5 months (end May - 15 September 1995). The arrangements for the next call for proposals in 1997 are currently under consideration, and the need to allow sufficient time for the preparation of bids, especially from the small and medium sized entreprises sector, is accepted by all parties. Although the timetable is not yet agreed, the current proposal is to allow a period of four months between the launch of the calls and the closing deadline for applications. Other amendments to the selection process are also under consideration in order to facilitate participation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1357/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies for associations, NGOs and various bodies

For Item B7-5040 (Environment in the developing countries), can the Commission provide a full list of the associations, NGOs or other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies, together with the exact amount of such subsidies during the last financial year for which the accounts have been closed?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1996)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.