ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3334/95 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (6 December 1995)

Subject: Subsidies for the renewal of the fishing fleet - the destruction of traditional boats

Payment of the Commission's subsidy for the renewal of the fishing fleet is conditional on, among other things, the destruction of old fishing vessels.

The result is the destruction of traditional boats in Greece and the disappearance of the art of wooden-ship building, an art which flourished in the Mediterranean from the eighteenth century.

Will the Commission modify the subsidy scheme in question so that it does not harm this nautical part of our cultural heritage?

Additional answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (4 March 1996)

Further to the answer given by the Commission on 5 January 1996, ((OJ C 91, 27.3.1996, p. 60. )) the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission has agreed to allow no more than 15 vessels satisfying very specific criteria in respect of age and traditional design to be withdrawn but not scrapped in the framework of the fisheries operational programme. These vessels, intended to illustrate traditional fishing activity, will be put on public display.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/95 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE), Bartho Pronk (PPE) and Petrus Cornelissen (PPE) to the Commission (12 October 1995)

Subject: National contributions to the EU

During the general debate on the Netherlands' national budget for 1996 in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament, the Prime Minister, Mr Kok, said that he wished a study to be carried out of possible changes in the system of national contributions to the European Union by the Member States (the Own Resources Decision).

1. Has the Commission received such a request?

2. If so, how exactly is it worded?

3. What is the direct monetary contribution of each Member State to the European budget for 1996?

4. What will the direct monetary contributions of each Member State to the European budget between 1994 and 1998 be?

5. How much is this per capita of the population of each Member State in 1996 and between 1994 and 1998?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1996)

The Commission is not aware of the request to which the Honourable members refer. However, on 15 and 16 December 1995 the Madrid European Council asked it 'to undertake a detailed analysis as soon as possible of the European Union's financing system in order to submit, immediately after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference, a communication on the future financial framework of the Union as from 31 December 1999, having regard to the prospect of enlargement.'

Own resources payments for the period 1994-96, as published in the budget (except in the case of 1994 for which actual figures are given), are set out in Table 1 below.

Member States' estimated contributions for 1997-99 are laid down in the financial perspective adopted by the Edinburgh European Council and subsequently amended at the time of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. They are set out in Table 2 below (1997 prices).

Per capita figures are shown in Table 3.

Table 1: Gross national financial contribution by Member State (million ECU)

>TABLE>

Table 2: Total gross contribution (estimate)

>TABLE>

Table 3: Gross per capita contribution (in Écus)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1378/95 by Kenneth Collins (PSE) and Winifred Ewing (ARE) to the Council (17 May 1995)

Subject: Administration of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons

Which Member States fully implement the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and which Member States have never agreed to any transfers where there are customs debts outstanding?

What steps will the Council take to ensure that the spirit of the Convention is fully observed by all EU countries?

Joint Reply to Written Questions E-1378/95, E-1819/95 and E-1885/95 (10 October 1996)

1. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, established by the Council of Europe on 21 March 1983, has been signed and ratified by all the Member States of the European Union.

2. The practical operation of Council of Europe Conventions on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including the Convention of 21 March 1983, is being examined at the Council of Europe by a standing group of experts, which is able to make proposals to the Committee of Ministers.

The Council of the European Union is thus apprised of Recommendation No R(92) 18, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 19 October 1992, concerning the practical application of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

In the recommendation, the governments of Member States of the Council of Europe are invited, among other things, to take steps enabling them not to have to refuse a transfer on the sole grounds that fines imposed on the sentenced person in connection with his sentence have not been paid or that 'contrainte par corps' has been imposed.

3. The Council has not been called upon to ensure the application by the Member States of those provisions of the Conventions concerning the transfer of sentenced persons.

4. The Council is, however, considering the possibility of examining and adjusting the instruments that exist with regard to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including those concerning the enforcement of foreign judgments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3468/95 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) and Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Council (3 January 1996)

Subject: Review of the Euratom Treaty

The preamble to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) is worded in terms that are no longer appropriate in this day and age. Scarcely anyone today still considers that 'nuclear energy represents an essential resource for the development and invigoration of industry', or that it 'will permit the advancement of the cause of peace'. Nor is it any longer a concern of most Member States or their peoples to 'create the conditions necessary for the development of a powerful nuclear industry'.

Can the Council still identify today with the wording of the preamble expressing the motives of the parties to the original treaty in concluding a treaty at that time?

If not, will the Council give consideration to undertaking a review of the Euratom Treaty - say by integrating such provisions of that Treaty as are still relevant today into the EC Treaty?

Is consideration being given to placing a review of the Euratom Treaty on the agenda of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference?

Reply (2 August 1996)

The Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community has enabled the Council to continue its proceedings as normal under the existing provisions of that Treaty.

Only the Intergovernmental Conference can decide to review the Euratom Treaty, and that would require unanimity. The questions of a review of that Treaty has been raised by a number of Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0671/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of common foreign and security policy, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of common foreign and security policy were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0667/95 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (10 March 1995)

Subject: Commission proposals in the field of energy, 1994

How many proposals for legislation and regulations in the field of energy were put forward by the Commission in 1994?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0662/95, E-0663/95, E-0664/95, E-0665/95, E-0666/95 E-0667/95, E-0668/95, E-0669/95, E-0670/95, E-0671/95, E-0672/95, E-0673/95, E-0674/95, E-0675/95, E-0676/95, E-0677/95, E-0678/95, E-0679/95, E-0680/95, E-0681/95, E-0682/95, E-0683/95, E-0684/95, E-0685/95, E-0686/95, E-0687/95, E-0688/95, E-0689/95, E-0690/95 and E-0691/95 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)

Further to its answer of 10 April 1995, the Commission can now give the following information.

The table below gives the number of proposals for legislation transmitted by the Commission in 1994 for adoption in the various areas to which the Honourable Member's questions relate.

Some were designed to implement new measures and others to update earlier legislation. They may also relate to the management of certain common policies (for example, commercial policy, common agricultural policy, fisheries, customs union).

Consolidation proposals are also included. Proposals amending proposals transmitted earlier are not included.

The statistics and list are taken from the Commission's APC database, to which Members of the European Parliament can have access, like the other institutions and the public.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (25 January 1996)

Subject: Garching research reactor

Reports by the Bavarian technical monitoring body TÜV state that the research project in Garching near Munich poses a number of potentially harzardous technical risks to safety. Specific mention is made of the as yet untested compact fuel rods. When in permanent use, these fuel rods might react in such a way as to lead to interruptions in the circulation of coolant due to expansion, with the possibility of a meltdown. The discharge of only 5% of the radioactive inventory would be sufficient to render large sections of the city of Munich uninhabitable for decades.

1. Is the Commission aware of the risks associated with the use of compact fuel rods?

2. What action will the Commission take in view of the high risk to safety posed by the Garching project?

3. Does the Commission continue to consider that the use of highly enriched uranium - possibly originating from the former Soviet Union - in the Garching installation is appropriate?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1996)

The Commission has no specific information on the FRM-II neutron source (research reactor).

All nuclear facilities of this type must be covered by authorizations issued by the national authority in respect of both the facility itself and the fuel used.

Several research reactors within the Community use highly enriched uranium in order to achieve the high fluxes needed in order successfully to conduct experiments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0324/96 by Luigi Moretti (ELDR) to the Commission (15 February 1996)

Subject: Community aid scheme part-financed by the EAGGF

Given Regulation (EEC) No. 2078/92 ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 85. )) of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, Articles 1(d) and 5(c) of this Regulation and the Lombardy Region's implementing law, can the Commission explain the scope of Article 5(d) and specify whether the 'persons other than farmers' are to include local authorities which provide for the upkeep of abandoned farmland and woodlands?

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

As the Honourable Member states, Regulation (EEC) nr. 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside allows aid to be granted to people other than farmers (where no farmers are available) for the upkeep of abandoned farmland or woodland.

The programme of the Lombardy region implementing Regulation (EEC) nr. 2078/92, approved by the Commission, contains a measure for the upkeep of abandoned farmland and woodland that allows aid to be granted to people other than farmers. However, the Lombardy programme excludes land owned by the state and land for public use from aid under the measure.

The Commission holds that, by analogy, the same exclusion should apply to land owned by local public bodies. Moreover, the Commission believes that public authorities should be excluded from aid for the upkeep of abandoned land for which they are responsible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 206/96 by Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO to the Council. European citizens kidnapped in Papua



Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0043



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0206/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (7 February 1996) Subject: European citizens kidnapped in Papua Seven European citizens have been kidnapped by the Papuan Liberation Movement. Can the Council state how the kidnapping happened? What action has the Council taken or does the Council intend to take to ensure the immediate release of these individuals? Reply (20 May 1996) The question of the hostages taken in Irian Jaya has been discussed by the Council, in particular at the General Affairs Council on 29 and 30 January 1996. Intensive bilateral contacts between the Member States affected by this kidnapping have continued since the beginning of this case, with the aim of finding a rapid and effective solution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Free Miners of the Forest of Dean, UK

'Free Miners' are a traditional group of workers comprising those born in the 'hundred' of St. Briavels in the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, England who have worked in the mines for a year and a day. Over seven centuries, since 1283, such people have had the right to mine freely within the Forest. Now a private company wants to impose enormous licensing fees, effectively closing the two remaining mines in the area.

Does the Commission not feel such a manoeuvre is in contravention of both tradition and competition rules?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1996)

On the privatisation of the British coal industry responsibility for all licensing coal mining in the United Kingdom was passed to the Coal authority, an independent institution set up by statute.

The Commission understands that the free miners in the Forest of Dean have been treated in the same way as other companies or individuals seeking licences to extract coal. It further understands that the Coal authority is considering whether special arrangements could be made for the free miners in view of the extremely small quantities of coal they produce.

There appear to be no grounds to conclude that there is any discrimination against the free miners or any other breach of the Community's competition rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0507/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)

Subject: Energy industry in Slovakia

1. How has the ECU 11 m paid so far by the EU to the Slovak Republic been spent?

2. In what areas of the Slovakian energy industry have investments been made, and to what extent did they involve foreign firms?

3. Is the Commission aware that the Slovak electricity generating company SE (formerly SEP), in cooperation with EdF and Siemens KWU, has made a loss on the Mochovce project of almost SK 15 m?

4. Is the Commission aware that these debts were underwritten by the Slovakian Government, thus relieving the financial pressure on SE but at the expense of Slovak society, which has been deprived of this money for other purposes?

5. To what extent have Siemens KWU, EdF, FAMATOM and other Western companies profited from this funding?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

1. The Phare programme has financed a series of technical assistance measures to help the Slovak government in the energy sector. Money for nuclear power has mostly gone on safety assessments at the Bohunice power station (with checks on seismic activity and on the emergency and containment cooling systems) as well as on support for the national safety authority). In the non-nuclear sector, which has received the most financing, Phare has helped analyze and implement the country's energy policy, giving pointers to improved efficiency. Areas receiving funding include studies, training programmes and technical assistance in drawing up and running the programme.

Among the first programmes now fully completed are a general assessment of the energy situation in Slovakia, an integrated study into energy price formation and taxation, the creation of national energy data bases, studies into cost streamlining, the development of monitoring and regulatory bodies, and energy audits both in building and industry and on a regional level. As in all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Phare activities have drawn heavily on the involvement of firms from individual Member States.

2. On the investment front, the plan is for a gradual shift towards efficient and renewable energy supplies (e.g. geothermics).

3-5. The Commission would point out that the details given by the Honourable Member have to do with domestic budgetary management, which is a matter solely for the Slovak authorities. As the Slovak government has withdrawn its request for a Euratom loan, the Commission has had no further talks with it on the specific points raised by the Honourable Member.

For additional information on the Mochovce building project, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the answer to her written question No E-508/96 ((OJ C 185 of 25.6.1996, p. 68. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0400/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 February 1996)

Subject: Protection of the Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus

In the proposal on the environment submitted as part of its application to join the European Union, the Government of Cyprus included the designation of Akamas as a 'national park and internationally protected biosphere'. This was also the purpose of drawing up the management plan for the protection of the Akamas peninsula, which forms part of the 'management of coastal zones', priority areas under the METAP programme funded by the EU and drawn up by the World Bank. The World Bank's study provides for absolute protection of the entire coastline of the Akamas peninsula.

At Akamas, however, the law is being broken every day both in the 'protected' areas of Lara-Toxevtra, the principal habitats for turtles, and along the coast at Asprokremos where there are plans to build three huge hotel complexes.

Since Cyprus is a signatory to international conventions and programmes such as the Berne Convention, the Barcelona Convention and the Community action programme for the protection of the environment in the Mediterranean (MEDSPA) which funds the programme for the protection of the turtles on Cyprus, will the Commission ask the Cypriot authorities for information and an explanation as to how the development of tourism at Akamas is consistent with the integrated management plan for the protection of the peninsula and can it provide assurances that it will intercede to persuade the authorities to put an immediate end to all the illegal activities?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0400/96 and E-0464/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

The Commission is not in a position to discuss with the Government of Cyprus the matters mentioned by the Honourable Members. The projects cited are in fact the jurisdiction of the state of Cyprus.

The conversion of Akamas into a national park has not been part of discussions in the framework of the structured dialogue with Cyprus on environment, nor has such an issue has been included in the context of Cyprus harmonization with the acquis communautaire.

The fact that the Commission can not interfere with the decisions of the government of Cyprus does not mean it is not attentive to the matter. The Commission delegation in Cyprus, which verifies the correct implementation of the Community's projects in Akamas, will follow the question with particular attention.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0655/96 by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission (8 March 1996)

Subject: Commission delays in dealing with complaints about technical barriers to trade

A recent survey of Danish industry reveals that one undertaking in seven has encountered technical barriers to trade when seeking to market their products in the EU in recent years. They have however given up making complaints to the Commission as it takes an average of a year to deal with them.

What does the Commission intend to do to speed up its complaint procedure?

Will the Commission conduct an investigation into the extent to which EU companies in general are not bothering to complain about barriers to trade as they believe that the procedure is too cumbersome and protracted?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 April 1996)

The Commission is fully aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. The examination of generally complex cases and the numerous contacts with the administrations concerned take time and, if too protracted, can be detrimental to the credibility of action taken by it.

For this reason, the Commission is currently looking into ways of improving and speeding up infringement procedures in the light of experience to date. In the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference, it has 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). ))

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.