ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Eye tests for driving licences

Is the Commission aware that in the UK it is only necessary to have an eye test when taking a driving test and not on a regular basis, and that many people are likely to be driving cars without sufficient vision? What is the requirement for eye tests for driving in each of the Member States, and does the Commission have any plans to improve the present situation?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )), which has to be implemented at the latest by 1 July 1996, lays down minimum standards for sight for both drivers of group 1 (drivers of vehicles of categories A, B and B + E) and group 2 (drivers of vehicles of categories C, C + E, D, D + E and of subcategories C1, C1 + E, D1 and D1 + E).

These standards are contained in Annex III of the Directive, in particular at points 6.1. and 6.2. for group 1, and at point 6.3. for group 2. Thus applicants for a driving licence or for the renewal of a licence must have visual acuity as defined by the annex (the examination takes place before the issue or renewal of the licence). In addition, where there is reason to doubt that an applicant's vision is adequate, he must be examined by a competent medical authority.

More generally, the directive requires group 2 applicants to undergo a medical examination (during which the visual acuity may be checked) before a licence is first issued to them, and thereafter periodic examinations as may be prescribed by national legislation. Group 1 applicants on the other hand are required to undergo a medical examination prior to obtaining a licence, if it becomes apparent that they have one or more of the medical disabilities mentioned in the annex, and they are not obliged to undergo periodic examinations. However some Member States impose periodic examinations for group 1 drivers, but the directive lays down only minimum rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0454/96 by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Protection of wolves in Europe - follow-up to Question 1046/95

On 30 May 1995 the Commission replied to Written Question 1046/95 ((OJ C 213, 17.8.1995, p. 34. )) by Jean Gol on the protection of wolves in Europe. This answer was unsatisfactory since the Commission merely pointed out that the derogations from the protection of wolves in Spain, Greece and Finland resulted, on the one hand, from discussions held in the Council and, on the other, from a reservation entered by Finland under the Bern Convention.

1. Is the Commission adequately informed, not merely about the arguments used by these countries, but also of the fact that wolf populations in these three countries are afforded no protection whatsoever and that this problem must be remedied as a matter of urgency by amending the provisions of the Directive and removing the aforementioned derogations?

2. Should the Commission not consider consulting independent experts who will be responsible for ascertaining in situ whether this species requires protection?

3. What was the outcome of the infringement proceedings mentioned in the reply of 30 May 1995?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1996)

1. The Commission will send a communication from the Ministry for Agriculture on the management of wolf (Canis lupus) populations in Finland direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament. The situation in Greece and Spain remains unchanged: the species remains heavily protected to the south of the 39th parallel and of the Duero respectively, and in 1996 the Commission has received no complaints in this area.

2. Given the current situation regarding this species the Commission does not for the moment intend to consult any independent experts.

3. The Commission continues to pursue infringement procedures against those Member States which have failed to communicate implementing legislation for Council Directive 92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )). Since March 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden have all communicated certain legislation implementing the Directive.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0805/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 April 1996)

Subject: Reducation in the basic price of sheep and goatmilk - consequences for stockbreeders

Greek stockbreeders are vigorously protesting against the excessively low prices of sheep and goatmilk and the small amounts taken up by cheese producers. This situation is partly due to the fact that the basic price of sheep and goatmilk is steadily falling, unlike that of cows' milk. Moreover, mass imports of white cheese and milk powder have contributed to the establishment of stocks of feta cheese exceeding 40 000 tonnes.

What immediate and long-term measures does the Commission intend to take to alleviate the plight of stockbreeders and to absorb existing stocks?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

Unlike cows' milk, sheep's milk and its by-products are not covered by any price guarantee under the common organization of the market in milk and milk products. Sheep's milk production is not subject to the constraints of the milk quota system and so can be developed unrestrictedly.

The market in ewe's milk cheese is supported by a number of measures financed by the European Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), including mainly export refunds for this entire category of cheese and the granting of aid for the private storage of Kefalotyri and Kasseri. The Commission recently decided on the conditions for granting aid for the storage year 1996-97 for the latter types of cheese. The Commission has taken into consideration the specific and difficult situation regarding ewe's milk cheese by making less of a reduction in the refunds on it than in the refunds on other cheese.

The Commission has authorized the Greek Government to use some of the funds available for supplying foodstuffs to the poorest sections of the population for buying feta cheese on the market. This should help reduce surplus stocks of the product in the short term.

The Commission has no other way of securing a sustainable increase in the consumption of ewe's milk and cheese, the relatively high prices of which undermine their competitive position on the market. There is a possibility, therefore, that the market structure should be improved by adapting supply to demand.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/96 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Vehicles authorized in Finland

Is the Commission aware that for some time the Finnish authorities have been removing Dutch freight combination vehicles which are in transit through Finland to Russia from the roads and fining them for being unsafe?

The Finnish authorities consider that these vehicle combinations which are equipped with 'short couplings' and which are longer than 18 m. 35, but which comply with the criteria of the proposal for a directive (COM(93)679 ((OJ C 38, 8.2.1994, p. 3. )) (as approved unanimously at second reading by the European Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism and shortly to appear as an A item on the Council of Ministers' agenda) should not be allowed to transit Finland although, according to national legislation, freight vehicle combinations of 20 metres are permitted.

Does the Commission share my view that the Finnish authorities are interpreting the existing European legislation in such a way that there is a strong suspicion of discriminatory market protection?

Is it willing to approach the Finnish authorities so that, pending the final approval of the directive (COM(93)679), transport which meets these criteria is allowed to transit the country unhampered?

What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to make it clear to Finland that market protection and discrimination are inappropriate in the Union?

If so, how, and if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 May 1996)

Council Directive 85/3/EEC ((OJ L 2, 3.1.1985. )) on the weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles, as amended, currently only guarantees the free circulation of truck and trailer combinations ('road trains') up to 18,35m in length.

The position will change upon entry into force of the Commission proposal for a new directive to replace Directive 85/3/EEC. However, the common position ((OJ C 356, 30.12.1995. )) agreed in the Council did not sanction the use of short coupling devices on combinations longer than 18.35m.

For the other outstanding issues the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer given to his Written Question E-20/96 ((OJ C 173 of 17.6.1996, p. 16. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0083/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (30 January 1996)

Subject: Expulsion of NGOs from Rwanda

The Government of Rwanda has expelled from its territory the staff of 38 international non-governmental organizations working in Rwanda and has suspended the activities of 18 others.

What does the Council think of the Rwandan Government's actions?

Reply (11 June 1996)

The Council attaches great importance to the work of the NGOs in Rwanda, whose efforts are focused on the most needy sectors of the population. They perform significant humanitarian tasks to alleviate the suffering of people and they contribute to the reconstruction of the country.

The Council welcomes recent efforts by the Government of Rwanda and NGOs to reach agreement on mutually acceptable operating conditions for NGOs. The Council has taken up contact with the Rwandan authorities to seek to encourage the process.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0150/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (1 February 1996)

Subject: SME observatories

During the November 1995 part-session of the European Parliament, the Commission said that it was proposing to set up six new Community SME Observatories in six frontier regions.

Has the Commission decided which regions these are to be set up in? What criteria does it intend to follow, or has it used, when choosing where to site them?

Reply by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (1 March 1996)

In order to facilitate the activity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and craft firms in border regions, thereby enabling these enterprises to make better use of the opportunities presented by the single market, the Commission has decided to make a limited financial contribution towards setting up six advisory offices for craft firms and small enterprises.

The offices chosen will be at the disposal of enterprises operating in the following border regions: the Basque country/Navarre and Aquitaine (Spain-France), Tyrol and Trentino-Alto Adige (Austria-Italy), Baden-Württemberg and Alsace (Germany-France), Dungannon District and County Monaghan (United Kingdom-Ireland), North Rhine-Westphalia and the Province of Liège (Germany-Belgium), and on the sea border between Corsica and Tuscany (France-Italy).

The offices were chosen following an assessment of the proposals received by the Commission in response to a call for tenders published in the Official Journal ((OJ C 89 of 26 March 1994. )). In making its selection, the Commission was keen to ensure that this pilot project was carried out over as wide a geographical area as possible, and selected the best proposals which would guarantee the viability of the offices beyond their start-up phase. In view of the limited financial resources available to the Commission for supporting initiatives of this type, or the inability of the candidates to finance the implementation of their proposals beyond the start-up phase, a number of worthwhile proposals were unable to benefit from this financial contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/96 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission (9 February 1996)

Subject: Imports by Member States of seal skins from Norway

Can the Commission indicate how many seal skins have been imported by the various Member States over the past seven years?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (26 March 1996)

The Honourable Member will find the statistics on seal skins imported by the Member States from Norway over the past seven years in the tables sent directly to him as well as to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

It should be noted that the United Kingdom has applied a confidentiality clause to code 43017090 (whole raw skins of seals or fur seals) since 1 July 1991.

The Commission can also report that there have been no imports of furskins from pups of harp or hooded seals into the Community from Norway over the past seven years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/96 by Sir Jack Stewart-Clark (PPE) to the Council (27 February 1996)

Subject: Council's subsidiary bodies on drugs

1. Will the Council list the membership of each of the following subsidiary bodies on drugs, giving names and positions held in the Member State?

- National Drugs Co-ordinators

- Drugs and Organised Crime Working Party (third pillar)

- CSFP Working Party on Drugs (second pillar)

- Health Working Party (first pillar)

- Group of Experts from the Member States, set up by the Cannes European Council of 26/27 June 1995

-Ad-hoc Working Party on Drugs, set up by the Madrid European Council of 15/16 December 1995

2. What plans does the Council have to rationalize this state of affairs?

Reply (11 June 1996)

The composition of the delegations on the various working parties and expert groups, which in any event changes frequently, is a matter exclusively for the Member States.

The Presidency, assisted by the Council General Secretariat, coordinates the proceedings of the various groups.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1013/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Delay in adopting Eco-label legislation for ceramic tiles

Some years ago procedures were initiated for the definition of Community rules on an Eco-label, a seal of quality which already existed for other products, for ceramic tiles.

Since exhaustive studies have been carried outon the subject, why has no legislation yet been adopted, and when will the state of appanent inertia be brought to an end?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1996)

Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 on a Community eco-label award scheme ((OJ L 99, 11.4.1992. )) procedures to establish ecological criteria for the awarding of the Community eco-label for specific product groups are started by the Commission at the request of a competent body or at its own initiative. Before submitting a request to the Commission, a competent body conducts appropriate consultations of interest groups and informs the Commission of the results.

An Italian organization, Enea, has conducted a study on possible eco-label criteria for ceramic tiles. However, Italy has so far failed to establish an operational competent body, under Article 9 of the Regulation. Therefore, no request to start the procedure for establishing criteria for that product group has been received by the Commission. Moreover, informal discussion of the study has shown several difficulties with a possible development of eco-labelling criteria for ceramic tiles.

Finally, a review of the eco-label Regulation is presently being prepared. The Commission will consider the interest of further work on ceramic tiles in the light of orientations for the revision of the Community eco-label scheme.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0067/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Council (30 January 1996)

Subject: Timetable for proposals on Greek textiles industry

Under the new terms of international competition created by the GATT accord and the Agreement of 6 March 1995 on the Customs Union with Turkey, the Council and Commission undertook to present proposals in 1995 on the position of the textiles and clothing industry in Greece.

In response to my several questions to the Council and the Commission on this subject, each has claimed that the other is responsible for the delay in submitting proposals.

Despite the promises, we have finally reached the end of the year with the Commission still to submit proposals for the industry which attests to a lack of consistency and responsibility.

Will the Council honour its commitment concerning the textile and clothing industry in Greece and when will it present its proposals?

Reply (13 June 1996)

1. At the Council meeting of 6 March 1995, the Council and the Commission agreed, further to the Greek memorandum on textiles, that the Commission would consider at the earliest possible opportunity, in conjunction with the Greek Government, the difficulties arising in Greece's textiles and clothing sector from the new terms of international competition and the adjustment effort to be undertaken by businesses in that sector in order to boost its competitiveness. In that context, the Commission undertook to submit proposals in 1995 having regard to the competitive situation of the sector.

2. On 2 February 1996, the Commission submitted to the Council, a communication entitled 'The new terms of international trade and modernization of the European textiles industry: the case of Greece'. That communication examines the recent developments in the textiles and clothing industry in Greece and, on the basis of the findings, suggests a number of scenarios to cater for the modernization needs of that industry, without however putting forward any proposals at that stage.

It should nonetheless be noted that, at the end of its communication, the Commission:

- recognizes the difficult and deteriorating competitive conditions in the Greek textile industry,

- will analyse and monitor future structural developments, without prejudice to the question of the need or not for additional supporting measures,

- will make appropriate proposals if necessary.

3. For its part the Council can assure the Honourable Member that it will certainly give its full attention to any proposal the Commission might see fit to submit on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0441/96 by Carlo Secchi (PPE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: Financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996

A notice was published in Official Journal C 19 of 23 January 1996 concerning financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996.

In addition to giving details of the priorities and objectives for the projects, the notice states that special forms and explanatory notes regarding subsidy requests can be obtained from the Commission.

However, the deadline for submitting requests is 31 January 1996.

1. Does the Commission believe that the brief interval between publication of the notice in the Official Journal (23 January) and the deadline (31 January) was sufficient to enable all interested parties in the Union to obtain the necessary information in time to submit a request?

2. Were other measures taken prior to publication of the notice in order to inform all or some of those concerned and, if so, what were they?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission 21 March 1996

In order to operate with the highest degree of transparency when granting subsidies, the Commission, on 16 November 1995, sent a text in French and English on the granting of financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996 to five pan-european consumer organizations EBCU, IEIC, Eurocoop, EURO C and Coface specifically asking them to pass on the information to their members. It then published this text in French, English and German in the form of an article in the December 1995 edition of Info-C, an information bulletin, as well as publishing it in the Official Journal as a communication in all the official Community languages. Due to translation delays at such a particularly busy time of year, it was unfortunately only possible to publish the text in the Official Journal in January 1996. This is why the Commission, despite having received a considerable number of requests in December and January, has decided to extend the deadline until 31 May 1996. A new communication to this effect will shortly appear in the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0618/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council (19 March 1996)

Subject: Building of the Chamber in Strasbourg

In December a French daily published a passage from the report of the Court of Auditors which was apparently intended to be confidential. The Court of Auditors states that the financial controller had advised against signing the draft lease which had been put forward by the SERS company (Société d'Aménagement et d'Equipement de la Région de Strasbourg). The amount indicated in the lease was ECU 443 million (approx. LIT 900 billion), but the financial controller questioned the site's value. He criticized the vagueness of the final costs to which Parliament was exposing itself and the exchange risks involved. The Court of Auditors considers that the lease was therefore signed in circumstances contravening Community budgetary law.

Will the Council give its assessment of the Court of Auditors' statement and state whether it agrees that serious mistakes were made by action and/or omission?

Reply (25 June 1996)

The Honourable Member is referred to the reply which the Council gave to Written Question No E-2795/94 ((OJ No C 103, 24.4.1995. )) put to the Council by Yves Verwaede:

'The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the fact that, as regards the observations by the Court of Auditors to which he refers, the detailed examination which they may entail can only be carried out by the European Parliament, which they mainly concern. The Council is certain that the Parliament, as the authority responsible for giving discharge, will wish to carry out its responsibilities regarding this matter.'