ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2028/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: PHARE programme - financial accountability

Can the Commission indicate how the financial accountability of consultants appointed under the PHARE programme is monitored?

Can the Commission also state how payments to secondary consultants are monitored and audited?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)

The general conditions for all service contracts financed from Phare stipulate that the 'contractor shall be liable to the contracting party for full performance of all obligations resulting from the contract, repair any damage caused to the contracting party or the persons to whom the services were provided as a result of any action or omission relating to the performance of the contract, which is attributed to him as a result in particular of his warranty or negligence, errors or omissions'. A similar clause is stipulated for the supply contracts.

The Commission monitors the implementation of all projects closely and payment is undertaken only after verification that the terms of the contract have been met. Contractors' reports are verified by the Commission and, when required, by independent monitors. Payment is effected as specified in the contract to ensure that at every step of the project the objectives and targets are met before payment is undertaken. All bills and expenses submitted for reimbursement are verified by the Commission on the basis of justifying documentation as stipulated in the contract. At the end of the project, the accounts are cleared on the basis of an independent financial audit. In addition to the Commission's controls, the Court of auditors audits the Phare programme and present annual report on all aspects of the implementation.

In very few cases, the contractor is entrusted with the management of special funds for the purpose of the implementation of a project. In that event, the funds are guaranteed by the bank where the funds are deposited and are only released for payment upon the Commission's authorization.

The Commission does not make payments in favour of secondary consultants. The contractor always remains fully responsible towards the Commission in regard to any sub-contracted parts of the contract. The payments to the contractor are made only after the services have been rendered or the goods supplied.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1861/96 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Effects of legislative procedures

Since the introduction of the cooperation procedure, in which cases has the Commission withdrawn its proposal, following Parliament's rejection at second reading of the common position of the Council?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1860/96 and E-1861/96 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1996)

Since the implementation of the Single European Act there have been only seven cases of rejection of a common position by the Parliament under the co-operation procedure.

These were:

- Protection of workers from exposure to benzene (on 12.10.1988)

- Sweeteners as additives in foodstuffs (on 13.5.1992)

- Energy consumption of domestic equipment (on 8.7.1992)

- Maximum power of 2/3 wheeled vehicles (on 27.10.1993)

- Emissions from large combustion plants (on 14.12.1994)

- Incineration of hazardous waste (on 14.12.1994)

- Landfill of waste (on 22.5.1996)

In three cases (energy consumption of domestic equipment, emissions from large combustion plants, incineration of hazardous waste), unanimity existed in Council and the legislation was finally adopted. However, it should be noted that the only point of difference with Parliament on the energy consumption of domestic equipment dossier was comitology, a problem since resolved by the interinstitutional agreement on a modus vivendi.

In one case (maximum power of 2/3 wheeled vehicles), the vote of rejection took place just before the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union and was then interpreted as an 'intention to reject' under Article 189b 2(C). The issues subsequently were resolved in the conciliation procedure as the proposal now came under the co-decision procedure.

In the case of protection of workers from exposure to benzene, the legislation fell, but the key issue with regard to the information and consultation of workers was subsequently the subject of a separate proposal, which successfully passed all stages of the co-operation procedure.

After the rejection of the common position on sweeteners in food additives, the Commission decided to replace its proposal by a package of new proposals. The same approach is envisaged for the landfill of waste proposal which the Commission intends to replace with a new proposal as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1403/96 by Laura De Esteban Martin (PPE) to the Council (18 June 1996)

Subject: Trafficking in persons and sex tourism

Does the Council propose to take any action to deal with the problem of trafficking in persons and sex tourism?

Reply (14 October 1996)

In its programme for the second half of 1996, the Irish Presidency of the Council intends to step up the examination of the phenomenon of trafficking in persons and the means which can be envisaged to combat this scourge.

A Conference on Trafficking in Women for Purposes of Sexual Exploitation was moreover held in Vienna on 10 and 11 June 1996, organized jointly by the European Commission and the International Organization for Migration. On that occasion Anita Gradin, Member of the Commission, announced that the Commission was working on a communication on the subject which was due to be issued in the autumn and was preparing another conference on trafficking in children.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1377/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Nuclear non-proliferation in Eastern Europe

Will the Commissioner agree that the ageing and unstable nuclear reactors in the areas of Eastern Europe pose a threat to the security of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in that radioactive uranium and plutonium removed from these reactors could be traded to states which are developing nuclear weapons capability?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)

All states of central and eastern Europe are parties to the Treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) and therefore must take all necessary measures to implement obligations, in particular under Articles I, II and III of the NPT, whatever the situation of their nuclear reactors. Most are parties to comprehensive safeguards agreements with the International atomic energy agency. The concerns resulting from the operating of reactors of older design are related to nuclear safety.

Two Commission communications analyse illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and radioactive substances ((COM(94) 383 final and COM(96) 171 final. )). Extensive cooperation has been put into place between the Community and central and eastern European countries and other partners to tackle the problem. At the April 1996 Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security, a programme for combatting illicit trafficking of nuclear material was agreed and is now being implemented.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1677/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Greenpeace's CO2 court case

Why does the Commission maintain that individuals and NGO's do not have rights of legal standing to challenge actions of the Commission which harm or threaten their environmental interests?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 July 1996)

The Honourable Member is no doubt referring to the decision of the Court of first instance of 9 August 1995 (case T-585/93 ((Rec: 1995, II-2205. )), Greenpeace International and others-v-Commission).

As the Honourable Member will be aware, that judgement is the subject of an appeal to the Court of justice (case C-321/95P). It is not the Commission's policy to comment on matters which are sub judice.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1550/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (17 June 1996)

Subject: Cost of beef storage

Can the Commission give the cost (including incidental expenses) arising from the private and public storage of fresh, frozen and processed beef between 1990 and 1995, broken down by year and Member State?

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

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

The answer to written question E-1552/96 is simply that there is no aid for processing under the common organization of the beef and veal market.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1843/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)

Subject: Community contribution to action to combat mosquito-borne infectious diseases

According to the WHO's annual report on infectious diseases, the mosquito is 'public enemy number one'. Of the 17.3 m persons who died of infectious diseases last year, 13% were infected by mosquitoes.

Mosquitoes transmit malaria, yellow fever and dengue, as well as lymphatic filariasis, Japanese encephalitis, river blindness and Leishmaniasis. Most of the victims of mosquito bites were children.

Given that the mosquito is the scourge of numerous developing countries, many of which are directly linked to the EU by aid agreements, and considering that the WHO itself stresses in the new report that many of these infectious diseases could be controlled at low cost, can the Commission state how much aid it grants for the eradication of the above mosquito-borne infectious diseases, and what proposals it has for action jointly with the WHO to put an end to this health problem, for which purpose substantial expenditure would not be required?

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

While the prevalence of mosquito-borne diseases is indeed very high, we would point out that leishmaniasis and onchocerciasis (river blindness) are carried by flies - the Phlebotomus sandfly and the Simulium blackfly respectively.

The Commission's activities in the healthcare field reflect the objectives and priorities set out in its 1994 Communication to the Council and Parliament entitled 'The Community and the Member States' Policy on Cooperation with the Developing Countries in the Field of Health'. ((COM(94) 77 final. )) Those objectives include helping developing countries frame and implement healthcare policies having regard to the need both to create an environment favourable to health and to support the reform of healthcare systems, with a view to improving their quality and making them more accessible.

Community measures to improve the fairness and performance of healthcare systems include support for the development of comprehensive methods and resources conducive to the prevention and treatment of mosquito-borne infectious diseases. The Commission is working on programmes of this type in ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) and south-east Asian countries. Under the seventh European Development Fund alone ECU 300 million was committed at the end of last year to support healthcare programmes in ACP countries.

The body in the front line of efforts to combat disease - including vector control - is the World Health Organization. The Commission works along with the WHO in various specialist forums and in individual countries where it sponsors healthcare programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/96 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (31 May 1996)

Subject: Blasphemous film

The company 'Modern People News' recently announced that it intended to produce a film in the United States on the sexual life of Jesus Christ.

In the film, Jesus Christ would be depicted as a homosexual, while the part of Mary Magdalene would be taken by a notorious French prostitute.

1. What can be done to prevent this blasphemous film being produced?

2. If the film is produced, what can the Commission do to prevent it from being shown in cinemas in EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 July 1996)

The rules of the EC Treaty do not, empower the Commission, in general, to prohibit the production, distribution and possession of the products concerned. It should be noted that the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods and services (Articles 30-36 and 59) allow the Member States to ban the production, distribution and possession of such films on the grounds of public morality, public policy or public health, as long as such prohibitions do not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of goods or services between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1121/96 by Josu Imaz San Miguel (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Possible American sanctions on imports of Italian fish

The decision by the International Trade Tribunal in New York may mean an immediate ban on imports of Italian fish products and products derived therefrom due to that country's breach of United Nations rules on the use of drift nets.

The possible ban on American imports of Italian fish may lead to an imbalance in the European market due to the threat of an excess supply which may adversely affect the market balance and harm producers in other Community countries.

One of the Commission's legal obligations as guarantor of the EU Treaty, specifically by virtue of Article 39(1)(c), is to stabilize markets for fish products. The Commission should not wait for this imbalance to come about without taking action on the causes of the American boycott of Italian imports, which, in economic terms, may represent an additional supply amounting to Ptas 150.000 millions.

If the ban on imports approved by the New York tribunal is due to the use of illegal drift nets by the Italian fleet, the Commission should consider the fact that illegal fishing has continued despite the great efforts made to monitor drift nets during the past summer. This appears to indicate that the solution is to be found in a total ban on such nets.

Will the Commission take any measures in response to the possible US boycott of Italian fish imports?

Will the Commission raise this question at the Fisheries Council meeting on 22 April 1996, in its capacity as the body responsible for stabilizing the markets for fish products in accordance with the Treaty?

Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1996)

The value of exports of fishery products from Italy to the United States is not around Ptas 150 000 million but around Ptas 300 million. If the figure of Ptas 150 000 million includes products other than those covered by the common organization of the market in fishery products, those other products which were also covered by an embargo would have no effect upon the stability of the market in fishery products. A list of exports from Italy to the United States of the products covered by the common organization of the market in fishery products is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat (1994 figures: quantity exported: 455 tonnes; value exported: ECU 1.7 million).

If the United States adopts unilateral trade sanctions against imports of products from Italy, the Commission will in any event react on the basis of the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

The matter was not raised at the Council meetings on 22 April or 10 June.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1296/96 by Luigi Florio (UPE) to the Council (24 May 1996)

Subject: Possibility of armed conflict in Italy

For some time now the leader of the Northern League, Umberto Bossi, MEP, and the other leading figures of his movement have been publicly campaigning for the secession of the north of Italy. Over recent weeks, the Northern League has set up its own security force - known as the 'green shirts' - and announced the formation of a 'Government of Padania' and a 'liberation committee'. Furthermore, a self-styled 'Parliament of the North' has been meeting in Mantua for the past year or so.

All the signs point to the Northern League's leaders being intent on stepping up their campaign of provocation against the Italian institutions by organizing ever more spectacular protests and using increasingly threatening language.

Given the above, one cannot rule out the possibility of the political campaign degenerating into armed conflict in Northern Italy, which would have incalculable implications for the process of European integration.

Has the Council given any consideration to the above possibility, or does it intend to do so?

In particular, does it feel that it should as of now, pursuant to Article J.2 of the Maastricht Treaty, adopt a common position in the field of security policy with a view to such an eventuality?

If it does not, what steps does it feel it should take to deal with a situation which is clearly at odds with the fundamental Treaty objective of promoting peace and security in Europe?

Reply (14 October 1996)

The Council has not discussed matters such as those to which the Honourable Member refers. The Honourable Member may recall that while the provisions regarding security that he mentions are within the domain of the 'Common Foreign and Security Policy' and pertain to the external dimension of the Union's competence, the provisions of Title VI of the Treaty provide for cooperation on justice and home affairs. This cooperation however is without prejudice to the exercise of the responsibilities imcumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security (Article K.2).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1651/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (24 June 1996)

Subject: Simplified procedure for the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

1. What GMOs have so far been released under the simplified procedure?

2. How many applications for the simplified procedure have there been, from which Member States?

3. Which GMOs are involved?

4. What arrangements are there under the simplified procedure to ensure the public is informed?

5. Is it true that GMOs can be released under the simplified procedure in total secrecy?

6. Does the simplified procedure preclude application of the environmental information directive?

7. If so, what corrections does the Commission propose to safeguard the principle of openness?

8. If not, what are the specific prospects for its application?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1996)

1. According to the information received from the Member States, up to now six modified crop plants have been released according to the simplified procedure (cauliflower, chicory, maize, oil seed rape, potato and sugar beet).

2. & 3. Only France and the United Kingdom have requested the application of simplified procedures in 1994 under Article 6.5 of Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms to the environment. These simplified procedures were adopted by the Commission in accordance with the opinion of the committee established pursuant to Article 21 of Directive 90/220/EEC (Commission Decision 94/730/EC of 4 November 1994 ((OJ L 292, 12.11.1994. ))). The authorities of Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom have notified the Commission of their intention to apply the simplified procedures foreseen in that Decision. These simplified procedures cover the release of genetically modified crop plants which fulfil specific conditions outlined in detail in Annex II of Commission Decision 94/730/EC.

4. According to Article 7 of Directive 90/220/EEC the Member States may provide 'that groups or the public shall be consulted on any aspect of the proposed deliberate release' if it is considered appropriate. The simplified procedures which have been adopted do not restrict the right and the duty of the Member States to set up the appropriate public information.

5. Directive 90/220/EEC clearly outlines in Article 19 (4) that in no case the description of the genetically modified organism, the notifier and the location of the release may be kept confidential. Therefore, even releases according to the simplified procedures can not be done confidentially.

6. to 8. Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 ((OJ L 158, 23.6.1990. )) on the freedom of access to information on the environment and Directive 90/220/EEC apply independently of each other. The application of Directive 90/313/EEC, therefore, is not excluded by the application of simplified procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1973/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: Community action on anti-personnel mines

The European Parliament has, through its resolutions and the introduction of a specific budget line, called for the implementation of mine-clearance programmes in third countries, especially in developing countries.

1. Will the Commission state what mine-clearance plans have been approved?

2. Does it intend to promote mine-clearance programmes on a larger scale, either independently or in conjunction with other organizations (international agencies, governments, non-governmental organizations, etc.)?

3. What is the justification for the proposal contained in the preliminary draft budget for 1997 to remove budget line B7-615 'European Union action relating to anti-personnel mines'?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)

During the period 1995-1996 some 50 MECU from the Community budget, as well as from the European development fund (EDF), is being devoted to mine clearance activity around the world.

As far as the B7-615 budget line is concerned, the Commission wishes to use approximately 6-7 MECU of this for mine clearance actions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, an area in urgent need of assistance, where the Commission has identified four particular projects which it wishes to take forward as quickly as possible. It is now engaged in tender procedures for two of these and is awaiting proposals from non governmental organizations for the other two. In addition, a number of projects in other countries are being identified for possible funding from the new budget line, in such areas as training in detection and neutralisation of explosive devices and mine accidents prevention.

To improve internal management the 1996 budget line B7-615 has been changed to B7-661 (specific actions with third countries - Community participation in actions related to anti-personnel mines), hence the apparent 'deletion'. The intention is that it should be a central fund available for mine-clearance-related activities (including victim support) both in former Yugoslavia and in any other afflicted regions of the world.

From a practical point of view, and through its political efforts, the Community stands at the forefront of the most effective international actions to overcome the anti-personnel mine tragedy, particularly in the developing world. The Commission is continuing to play a major part in this.