ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0873/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (17 April 1996)

Subject: Major risks involved in the construction of a tanker terminal in the Gulf of Panzano

The firm Societa Nationale Azienda Metanodotti (SNAM) is planning to construct the largest tanker terminal in the world in the Gulf of Panzano (between Trieste and Monfalcone). The thermal effects produced by the release of the natural gas are to be compensated for by sinking heat exchangers into the sea. As a result, the temperature of the sea water will be reduced over a wide area. A further effect on the marine biology will be the increase in suspended matter caused by the construction work.

Will the project be promoted as part of the programmes and funds financed or co-financed by the European Union? If so, which programmes and funds are these?

From which budget headings will they be financed?

How much support will the project, sections of it, or the infrastructure for it (e.g. roads, pipelines, etc.) receive?

Can the Commission guarantee that this project will not conflict with other political objectives, particularly the promotion of economically and ecologically sustainable development?

Is the Commission certain that the project will not obstruct the achievement of the European Union's political objectives, particularly in the areas of developing tourism and climate protection?

Can compliance with EU legislation be guaranteed, in particular Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.04.1979, p. 1. )) (on the conservation of wild birds) and Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.07.1992, p. 7. )) (on the conservation of habitats and flora and fauna) despite the danger of a reduction in the sea temperature, pollution caused by suspended matter or the increased risk of tanker accidents in the northern Adriatic?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1996)

The Commission has not so far received any application for funding for the project mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Consequently, it does not have sufficient information to comment on this project which basically falls within the sphere of responsibility of the Italian national authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1318/96 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Competitions for the European Union's civil service

Why has the Commission not held any open competition for more than two years to recruit officials for the European Civil Service?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)

It is assumed that the question refers to competitions at the basic category A grades. The last A7 and A8 competitions involving citizens from all Member States were launched in July 1993. These competitions which produced reserve lists of 600 in total were completed in the autumn of 1994.

In 1995, priority was given to recruitment of citizens from Austria, Sweden and Finland. Competitions were held at the A7 and A8 grades for citizens from the three new Member States which produced reserve lists of 287 laureates.

In the light of the size of existing category A reserve lists, it has not been necessary to launch additional competitions concerning citizens from all the Member States. The Commission is currently considering the nature and timing of future competitions, taking into account in particular the need for inter-institutional cooperation in this field.

As far as other categories of staff are concerned, the Commission, often together with other institutions, has organised competitions at the LA, B and C grades concerning citizens from the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1410/96 by Jan Wiebenga (ELDR) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Transit of cocaine via the French Antilles

1. A report in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf indicated that consignments of cocaine can enter the European Union almost without hindrance from the French Antilles in particular ((De Telegraaf, 3 February 1996. )). Can these French islands be counted as part of the territory of the European Union and also as part of the territory to which the Schengen Agreements apply?

2. Is the Commission willing to bring pressure to bear on the French Government to ensure that these gaps in the external frontiers of the European Union and Schengen area are stopped as soon as possible?

3. Has Europol (European Drugs Unit) adequate powers to take action in this matter and is this organization actively seeking to combat these illegal consignments?

4. Is action being taken to develop a plan, drawn up by all European countries which have links with the Caribbean region and South America, to halt the transit of cocaine and other drugs from this region? If so, what progress has been made? If not, does the Commission share the view that it is highly necessary for such a plan of action to be drawn up?

Anwer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1996)

The Commission is not aware of the allegation in the question concerning the situation in the French Antilles which, as a French overseas department, is an integral part of Community territory. According to Article 138 of the Schengen Agreement, as regards the French Republic, the provisions of this Agreement only apply to the European territory of the French Republic.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern at the threat posed by imports of cocaine into the Community but has no legal power to influence the way drugs policies are enforced by the Member States.

In this context, the work of the European drugs unit in the area of intelligence to fight against drugs trafficking is very valuable and needs to be continued.

Further to a request by the Madrid European Council, the Council and the Commission are preparing a report and proposals for action targeted to Latin America and the Caribbean including the setting up of a cooperation mechanism in the fight against drugs between the Community on the one hand, and Latin America including the Caribbean ACP states and OCT (oversea countries and territories) on the other.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1182/96 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (15 May 1996)

Subject: Support for bee-keeping

Bee-keeping was included among the priorities of both the Spanish and Italian Council Presidencies.

When will the Commission submit a proposal on this subject and what form will it take?

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

In October 1994 the Council invited the Commission to submit as soon as possible specific proposals in the light of its discussion paper on European apiculture. ((COM (94) 256 final. )) A preliminary draft framework regulation, based on the conclusions of the discussion paper is currently the subject of interdepartmental consultations. One of the aims of these consultations is to avoid the risk of double financing measures which may be proposed under various Community funds.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1423/96 by Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) and Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Grave situation faced by the European bee-keeping sector

Since October 1994 the Council has been urging the Commission to submit a concrete proposal for this sector, which in recent years has been facing a grave situation caused by the adverse impact of imports.

To date, the Commission has not replied to the Council or to requests from Community producers or the European Parliament.

When does the Commission plan to introduce the budgetary instruments and machinery needed for appropriate measures for this sector?

Does the Commission plan to take up the measures proposed by the EP in its Resolution A4-0116/94 ((OJ C 43, 20.2.1995, p. 130. ))?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 June 1996)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Question E-1182/96 by Mr Jové Peres and Mrs González Álvarez ((OJ C 305, 15.10.1996, p.58. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1084/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Green cards for British tourists

Would the Commission undertake to investigate recent cases in which British tourists with full driving licences and insurance have been stopped and fined by the French police for failing to produce a green card.

Given that it is no longer obligatory to carry a green card, would the Commission agree that this practice constitutes a breach of the principle of free movement?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 June 1996)

The possession of a green card is no longer a condition for allowing private motor cars from the United Kingdom to enter the territory of other Member States.

Indeed, under Article 2 (1) of Directive 72/166/EEC ((OJ L 103, 2.5.1972. )), 'Member States refrain from making checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of vehicles normally based in the territory of another Member State'. A vehicle's registration plate will indicate whether it is 'based in the territory of another Member State'.

There may, however, be instances after entering another Member State (e.g. in the event of an accident) when the driver may be asked for evidence that third party insurance does exist and where it has been taken out. The easiest and most internationally accepted way of producing this evidence is still the green card. Thus, while it does not constitute a pre-condition for entering and driving in another Member State, for practical reasons it is often convenient to have one.

The Commission would appreciate further details of any case in which French police have stopped and fined British tourists who did not possess green cards, and would take them up with the French authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1359/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 June 1996)

Subject: Community subsidies for associations, NGOs and various bodies

For budget heading B7-5070 (European programme for reconstruction and development in South Africa), 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 Pinheiro on bebalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)

The table below indicates the contractual partners of the Commission for the 1995 execution of the European programme for reconstruction and development in South Africa (EPRD). With particular regard to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), budget line B7-5070 (EPRD) has committed 48.57 MECU for NGO projects in 1995.

Moreover, even though the financing agreements for projects such as the land reform pilot programme, water development programme in the Eastern Cape, human rights programme and small and micro-enterprise development programme are with the Republic of South Africa, important components will be implemented by NGOs.

>TABLE>

SA NGO = South African Non Governmental Organisation AEC = Association européenne pour la coopération
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)

Subject: Telecommunications

Careful consideration needs to given to a number of extremely important points relating to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of open network provision (ONP) (COM(95) 379 ((OJ C 313, 24.11.1995, p. 7. ))):

- it is essential to ensure that the divergence of national regulations from a common framework established at European level is kept to a minimum;

- it contains ambiguities, particularly with regard to the definition of 'public telecommunications network' and 'public telecommunications service';

- the mixing of provisions concerning interconnection and interoperability, on the one hand, with the provisions for universal services, on the other hand, risks creating problems in future when operators come to interpret these provisions in practice;

In view of the above comments, and given the proposal's considerable scope, will the Commission see that it is worded more clearly, with precise definitions, and structured more coherently and more logically?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1996)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in the proposed directive on interconnection in the telecommunications sector.

The Honourable Member's concerns regarding the need for consistency of the national regimes at Community level, the definition of the public character of networks and services, and the need for clear treatment of universal service have, to a large extent, been expressed in the opinion adopted by the Parliament on 14 February 1996 on the first reading of this proposal.

On the first point, attention is drawn to the provisions calling for increased independence and effectiveness of national regulatory authorities contained in the proposed adaptation of the existing open network provisions ((COM(95) 543, OJ C 62, 1.3.1996. )).

The second point has now been clarified in the common position of the Council, through the modification of the definitions of public telecommunications networks and services, where the emphasis is now on public availability rather than on public ownership.

The recent Commission communication on universal service for telecommunications ((COM(96) 73. )) provides further clarification on the third point.

The Commission is confident that the points identified in the question are being dealt with in the current telecommunications legislative proposals, in which the Parliament is fully involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1783/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (3 July 1996)

Subject: human rights situation in Kashmir

In view of the alleged continued abuse of human rights in Kashmir that has lead to the 'disappearance' of many individuals, as in the case of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, what action is the Community taking to put pressure on the Indian Government to ensure that fundamental human rights are protected and that individual cases of abuse and 'disappearance' are thoroughly investigated?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)

The Presidency of the Council in the United Nations human rights committee (Geneva, April 1996) clearly presented the position of the Community on the subject:

'The human rights situation in Kashmir remains a cause for serious concern; the European Union welcomes, however, measures taken by India to increase transparency and other measures to prevent human rights violations there and encourages India to continue those efforts. The European Union welcomes in particular the agreement to allow the ICRC to carry out its work in Kashmir and looks forward to access being granted to Kashmir to other humanitarian organisations and to NGO's.

The European Union condemns all violence and hostage-taking. We call on the government of Pakistan to take effective measures to prevent armed infiltrations from territories under its control. Dialogue between India and Pakistan should resume without delay and concrete measures should be taken by both parties to defuse the current tense situation. The European Union notes the declared willingness of both sides to talk and encourages them to do so. We take note of the intention of the government in New Delhi to organise free elections in Kashmir.'

The Commission and the Member States have evolved a common position vis-à-vis the two countries involved, which are both official partners of the Community, which consists of supporting bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan on the issue which takes account of the aspirations of the Kashmiri people; encouraging India to improve the human rights situation in Kashmir and to initiate a genuine political process and urging Pakistan to ensure that external support for the violence is brought to an end.

The Commission feels that promoting transparency and international scrutiny of events in Kashmir - which implies freedom of access for interested non governmental organizations and the media - can help improve the human rights situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1543/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Extradition of Pietro Venezia, an Italian citizen, to the USA, where he is in danger of being sentenced to death

The European Union respects the human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to life, laid down in international agreements, including the European Convention on Human Rights, and enshrined in the constitutions and constitutional case law of its Member States.

Pietro Venezia is in danger of being extradited from Italy to the USA, where he will very probably be sentenced to death.

What action does the Commission intend to take to prevent what would be a clear violation of a fundamental right of an EU citizen?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1996)

Extradition is a matter for the Member States and the Commission has no competence in the matter.

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters is a matter of common interest under Article K.1(7) of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union and while the Commission is fully associated with the work in this area, in accordance with Article K.3, it does not have a right of initiative.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1438/96 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Benefits of older workers

Is the Commission aware that the UK Department for Education and Employment has recently produced a publication entitled 'Getting on - the benefits of an older work-force'?

What steps will the Commission take to prevent discrimination against older workers in the workplace? Will the Commission introduce a directive or recommendation prohibiting discrimination against older workers?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1996)

The Commission is aware of this publication and has had useful contacts in this matter.

Since 1993, steps have been taken to highlight the difficulties faced by older workers and older job-seekers, including a European study on age discrimination and promotion of best practice in the context of an ageing workforce.

In its white paper on European social policy ((COM(94) 333 final. )), the Commission stated that at the next opportunity to revise the Treaty 'serious consideration must be given to the introduction of a specific reference to combating discrimination, on grounds of, inter alia, age'.

In its opinion on the Intergovernmental Conference ((COM(96) 90 final. )), the Commission proposes that there should be included in the EC Treaty provisions concerning the prohibition of all discrimination.

The Commission does not plan to propose either binding legislation or a recommendation in this matter pending the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1378/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (6 June 1996)

Subject: Nuclear non-proliferation in Eastern Europe

Would the Commissioner agree that rather than risk proliferation of nuclear technology and materials by keeping the unstable nuclear reactors of Eastern Europe running by means of expensive back-fitting carried out by western EU companies, it behoves the Union to aid states where such reactors are sited to develop more economic, non-polluting energy-producing technology from renewable and alternative sources?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)

The European Union provides assistance to help countries in central and eastern Europe develop an energy sector which is based on economic and environmentally sound principles. The assistance provided for the upgrading of the safety of the nuclear reactors reflects concern about the short term risk emanating from these installations. In the medium term the Commission considers that those reactors that cannot be upgraded to international safety levels should be shut down.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1892/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (11 July 1996)

Subject: Childcare

The Commission should now have the results of the review of the Recommendation on childcare.

When will it release the figures to the European Parliament, to show whether there has been any improvement in provision since the Recommendation was agreed by Council?

What further action is the Commission proposing to take?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)

In March 1995, the Commission forwarded to all Member States a questionnaire requesting details of the measures they had taken to implement the 1992 Council Recommendation 92/241/EEC on childcare ((OJ L 123, 8. 5.1992. )). Most of the Member States have replied to this questionnaire. This information will allow the Commission to present a draft report before the end of this year.

The Commission is committed to the continuation of work and research in the area of reconciliation of work and family life. Indeed, it is a key priority of the Community fourth action programme on equal opportunities for women and men (1996-2000) ((OJ L 335, 30.12.1995. )). The report will make a valuable contribution to the Commission's consideration of the most important aspects of childcare services upon which to focus future action.

In the meantime, it should be noted that the Community childcare network has recently published a 'Review of services for young children in the European Union 1990-1995' which gives a comparative analysis of the current provisions in each Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1037/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)

Subject: Removal firms' responsibility for VAT

What measures has the Commission taken to regularize the problems complained of by the British Association of Removers in their dealings with VAT?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1996)

Prior to 1 January 1993, goods received in one Member State from another were treated as importations and the value of the associated transport services should have been added to the value of the goods for taxation at importation. Member States generally applied this rule to the transport of household goods although, normally, such goods are exempt from VAT. This meant, in practice, the removal services themselves were also exempted. However, after that date, when import barriers were abolished under the single market transitional system, such transport services, supplied to private people not registered for VAT, became taxable separately in the country of departure of the goods. This means that removal firms may have to account for VAT in Member States where they are not established and the Commission acknowledges the difficulties they encounter in ensuring that this is done correctly.

In the current transitional system, these difficulties are inherent due to the principles governing the place of taxation of supplies of goods and services within the Community. The complexity of these rules encourages operators, faced by the cumbersome nature of their obligations and the scale of their costs, not to declare their activities or to declare them in the Member State in which their costs would be the lowest.

Only a radical change in the place of taxation rules can provide an effective solution both for operators and tax administrations. The latter encounter serious difficulties in monitoring the present complex rules. This is a challenge to which the Community must now respond in the context of the work on setting up a definitive VAT system.