ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1880/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 June 1997)

Subject: Standardization and the information society

In its Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on 'Standardization and the global information society: the European Approach' (COM(96) 0359 final), the Commission is right to conclude that, within the scope of the New Approach directives, recognition of PAS (Publicly Available Specifications) could only be relevant to the specific aims of the Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive, in the area of public procurement.

Will the Commission therefore amend this directive to enable the Community to take the role of PAS into account when the various directives on public procurement, concerning supplies, labour and public services, are next revised?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1997)

The issue of publicly available specifications has various aspects which are currently under examination by the Commission, taking into consideration the opinion on the communication given by the Parliament and the Economic and social committee, and in the light of discussions within various committees such as those set up under Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations ((OJ L 109, 26.4.1983. )) and under Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardization in the field of information technology and telecommunication ((OJ L 36, 7.2.1987. )).

In this context, discussions concentrate on the question to what extent the Directives themselves in relation with Council Decision 87/95/EEC already allow for specifications which do not have status of standard, to be taken into consideration for purposes of procurement. Other possibilities under examination concern the creation, if need be, of mechanisms or criteria in order to create transparency in the selection of specifications publicly available on the market for use by public authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/97 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Turkish interference in minority schools in Istanbul

According to reports in the Turkish newspaper 'Milliyet', the Istanbul Directorate for Education, which comes under the Turkish Ministry of Education, called in the Turkish deputy directors of the Greek minority schools and asked them to 'observe' Turkish teachers who 'collaborate' with their Greek colleagues.

Bearing in mind that (as 'Milliyet' also points out) in Istanbul 'the number of Greek schools left can be counted on the fingers of one hand' and that such a practice will end up intimidating the Turkish teachers and further isolating the Greeks, and bearing in mind that it constitutes an infringement of intellectual freedom and the right to education and that Turkey is associated with the EU through special agreements, will the Commission respond and, if so, how?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

The Commission has been in touch with the Turkish authorities and the Turkish Human Rights Foundation and has not obtained any evidence to corroborate the information published in 'Milliyet.'
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Youth for Europe

With regard to budget heading B3-1010: Youth for Europe, can the Commission say whether subsidies have been granted for Italy and, if so, for which organizations and for which activities?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-0858/97, E-0859/97, E-0860/97, E-0861/97, E-0862/97, E-0863/97, E-0864/97, E-0865/97, E-0866/97, E-0867/97, E-0868/97, E-0869/97, E-0870/97 and E-0871/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 25 April 1997 ((OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 81. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing the information requested.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1528/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Information on EC assistance granted to the Saarland from January to December 1994

In what amounts and for what measures did the Saarland receive Community resources in 1994 from:

1. the European Social Fund,

2. the Fourth Framework Research Programme,

3. the European Regional Development Fund,

4. the Community environment and energy programmes,

5. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance and Guarantee Sections,

6. other Community programmes?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-1528/97 and E-1529/97 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1997)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1994/97 by Roy Perry (PPE) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Regional policies

How much money from the EU Structural Funds is allocated to the islands of Europe and which inhabited islands in Europe are not in receipt of EU Structural Funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf- Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

The amount of money that can be specifically identified as going to islands in the Community under the Objective 1 CSFs (Community support frameworks) and SPDs (single programming documents) in 1994-99 is about ECU 7 000 million, of which almost half is allocated to development in the most remote regions. Approximately ECU 2 300 million is earmarked for Sardinia and Sicily, while the Greek islands ((Crete, northern Aegean, southern Aegean, Ionian Islands. )) and Corsica are to receive ECU 900 million and ECU 300 million respectively. Various other islands (e.g. Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles in Scotland, Rügen in Germany) are also receiving Structural Fund resources under Objective 1 but they are not covered by separate programming documents from which the exact amount could be identified. A number of other islands are eligible, in whole or in part, under Objectives 2, 5(b) and 6, but here again it is impossible to put a figure on the resources specifically granted to them because programming is at a regional level.

To these amounts we need to add the Community Initiative programmes being implemented in the relevant regions. In particular these are the programmes under Regis, which total ECU 600 million over the period 1994-99 and where the aim is to mount operations which complement the CSFs and SPDs covering the Community's most remote regions. There is also an Interreg programme for Corsica and Sardinia, with a volume of about ECU 35 million over the period, which is designed to finance projects of inter-regional cooperation between the two. Finally, the majority of other Community Initiatives (Leader, Adapt, Employment, SMEs, Urban, Pesca) are available in these regions (but excluding the most remote regions). However, here too it is difficult to separate out the specific amounts as some of these schemes have been programmed at a level covering the whole country.

The inhabited islands which are not eligible under the regionalised Objectives of the Structural Funds comprise a population of about 2.9 million, essentially in Denmark.

Details of the sums allocated to islands qualifying under Objective 1 and a list of the inhabited islands not eligible under the regionalised Objectives are being sent directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1529/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Information on EC assistance granted to the Saarland from January to December 1996

In what amounts and for what measures did the Saarland receive Community resources in 1996 from:

1. the European Social Fund,

2. the Fourth Framework Research Programme,

3. the European Regional Development Fund,

4. the Community environment and energy programmes,

5. the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance and Guarantee Sections,

6. other Community programmes?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-1528/97 and E-1529/97 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1997)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1968/97 by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Cooperation between EU and UN

The European Union, and its Member States, spend a lot of money every year to cooperate with the UN. It is in the citizens' interest to know what we get for this money.

1. With which UN body does which DG at the Commission cooperate?

2. What is the contribution from the EU budget to each UN body?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1997)

1. DG IA, DG IB: responsible for general coordination with all United Nations (UN) bodies and operational contacts, in particular with regard to their geographical directorates.

DG II: UN conference on trade and development (UNCTAD), Food and agriculture organisation (FAO), UN conference on environment and development (UNCED).

DG III: World health organization (WHO), International atomic energy agency (IAEA), UN industrial development organization (UNIDO), UNCTAD, UNCED, Economic commission for Europe (ECE).

DG V: general coordination with all UN bodies on relevant aspects (International labour organisation (ILO), WHO, FAO).

DG VI: FAO, World food programme (WFP), WHO, ECE, UNCED, International union for the protection of new varieties of plants.

DG VII: International maritime organization (IMO), International civil aviation organization, ILO, ECE, UNCTAD.

DG VIII: FAO, International fund for agricultural development, UNCTAD, UN international drug control programme (PNUCID), UN environment programme(UNEP), UN educational, scientific and cultural organization (UNESCO), UN fund for population activities, Office of the UN High commissioner for refugees (UNHCR), UN children's fund (UNICEF), UNIDO, UN relief and works agencies for Palestine refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

DG X: UNESCO, UNHCR.

DG XI: UN bodies dealing with environment aspects (WTO, UN commission on sustainable development, UNEP, ECE).

DG XII: IAEA, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, ECE, UNCED.

DG XIII: International telecommunication union, Universal post union, WHO, World tourism organization, UNESCO.

DG XIV: FAO, WHO.

DG XV: World intellectual property organisation, UN commission on international trade law, UNCTAD.

DG XVII: IAEA, Intergovernmental panel on climate change.

DG XIX: all UN bodies on financial aspects.

DG XXI: IMO, WHO, UNCTAD, PNUCID, UNCED.

DG XXII: UNESCO, ILO.

DG XXIII: UNIDO.

ECHO: UNHCR, UNICEF, UN development programme, UNRWA, UN department of humanitarian affairs, Office of the UN disaster relief co-ordinator, Pan American health organisation, WFP, FAO, WHO.

2. There is no regular contribution from the Community to UN bodies. Nevertheless the Community co-finances UN administered projets. On the other hand, in 1997 the Member States of the Community contribute 35,41% to the regular budget of the UN and with 37,93% to its peace keeping budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1869/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Community aid to the Galician fisheries industry

The EU Agriculture Council recently decided to grant ECU 3 million (PTA 500 million) for Spanish cephalopod fishing based in the Canary Islands for the period 1996-97.

The main aim of this measure is restore the competitiveness of these products on the international market.

Since this sector is also important to the economy of the Spanish region of Galicia, can the Commission say what measures, similar to those deployed for the Canary Islands for the abovementioned purposes, are being introduced or have been introduced for Galicia and what criteria can be used as a basis for similar applications in order to provide specific aid for the Galician fisheries industry and obtain assistance wherever appropriate with a view to boosting the international competitiveness of Galician fisheries products?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1977)

Council Regulation (EC) No 712/97 setting up a specific measure in favour of cephalopod producers permanently based in the Canary Islands ((OJ L 106, 24.4.1997. )) renews for two years (1996-97) the aid scheme introduced in 1993 by Regulation (EEC) No 1658/93 ((OJ L 158, 30.6.1993. )) to take account of specific conditions in this very remote region as required by Council Decision 91/314/EEC setting up the Poseican programme ((OJ L 171, 29.6.1991. )). This provided that the Community would endeavour to improve the export position for cephalopods originating in the Canary Islands, which had lost competitiveness on the Japanese market, their principal outlet, as a result of integration of the islands into Community territory.

This is then a specific aid adopted under the provisions applicable to the Community's most remote regions and in the present regulatory framework cannot be extended to other regions or situations.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2111/97 by Josep Pons Grau (PSE) to the Commission (23 June 1997)

Subject: Interim evaluation of the PHARE, TACIS and MEDA programmes

In approving the 1998 budget guidelines on 13 March 1997 in Strasbourg, Parliament recalled its decision (adopted in its resolution of 26 October 1995) concerning an evaluation of the three most important programmes (i.e. PHARE, TACIS and MEDA), to be carried out towards the middle of their period of application (i.e. around 30 June 1997), so as to enable decisions to be taken regarding future appropriations ((OJ C 308, 20.11.1995, p. 120. )).

In the light of Parliament's criticisms and the disappointing results achieved so far (in the PHARE and TACIS programme budgets there is over ECU 3 billion worth of commitment appropriations awaiting contracts and there have been substantial delays in the implementation of contracts, to the detriment of other category 4 budget headings which are operating smoothly and effectively), and since the 1998 budgetary procedure has already begun (the 1998 preliminary draft has been approved by the Commission and is scheduled for first reading by the Council in July), could the Commission say what progress has been made in the interim evaluation of the three programmes?

Will this evaluation be submitted by 30 June 1997 as requested, so that Parliament can take a decision regarding future budgetary funding for the programmes concerned?

If so, could I be sent a copy of the evaluation in my capacity as 1998 budget rapporteur for the Committee on Development and Cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

The Parliament, in its resolution A4-0235/95 of 26 October 1995, requested the Commission to provide by 30 June 1997 an interim evaluation of the Tacis, the Phare and Meda programmes.

The deadline of 30 June 1997 has been met for all three reports. It is hoped that the findings of these evaluations will give insight into the achievements of the programmes.

The evaluations transmitted to the Parliament are a first step in a dialogue between the Commission and the Parliament on evaluations-related topics. Further evaluations are in the course of preparation, and will be communicated in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2023/97 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) and Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission (11 June 1997)

Subject: Further attacks on Spanish lorries by French farmers

Since the middle of May 1997 French farmers in various parts of southern France have been making repeated serious attacks on Spanish lorries transporting fruit and vegetables and on distributors' warehouses.

What steps has the Commission taken and does it intend to take to prevent a repetition of these attacks, which violate the right of free movement, a basic principle of the European Union?

Do these measures include suspending Community aid to French agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

With regard to the steps taken by the Commission in response to attacks by French farmers on fruit and vegetable lorries from other Member States, in particular from Spain, the Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to answer P-1992/97 given to Mr Garcia-Margallo y Marfil ((OJ C 45, 10.2.1998. )).

As to the Honourable Member's suggestion that payment of Community subsidies under the common agricultural policy to the French agricultural sector be suspended, with as justification the serious obstacle to free movement of goods caused by the incidents referred to above, the Commission would like to point out that such a step is, in the absence of a direct link between infringement of the free movement of goods and the expenditure resulting from the subsidies referred to above, without legal basis in current Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2526/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: Illiteracy in Morocco

The illiteracy rate in Morocco is alarmingly high, particularly among the female population. What immediate measures does the Commission intend to take within the framework of the MEDA agreements to contribute to the gradual reduction of this alarming phenomenon? Has it notified the Moroccan Government of the need for immediate and bold measures to establish compulsory education and to abolish discrimination against females, as a precondition for EU-Moroccan cooperation and aid?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1997)

Coverage of basic educational needs in Morocco is extremely poor, being similar to that in some of the least developed countries. Half the population is illiterate. Women and the rural population are particularly badly affected ((In the countryside 90% of women are illiterate (1994). The net rate of school attendance by girls in rural areas was 34% in 1994 (as against 85% for boys in urban areas). )) and this is a major obstacle to sustainable growth in Morocco. School attendance is compulsory in Morocco and a satisfactory proportion of the central-government budget is allocated to education ((Averaging about 25% over the last ten years (not including higher education), which is well within the average for countries with similar income levels. )).

But access to education for the most disadvantaged sections of the population is made difficult by a number of factors: shortage of resources for basic education; the internal inefficiency of the system, with excessive numbers of badly managed and ill-trained personnel, run-down infrastructure, and unsuitable teaching systems; and highly scattered homes in rural areas. The opportunity cost of school attendance ((Combined with a very poor standard of infrastructure (water, roads and farm tracks, health) in remote country areas. )) is also high for the poorest families (more especially parents of girls in rural areas), which affects the demand for education. The problem, therefore, is a complex one.

The Moroccan authorities - at the very highest level - realise how serious the situation is. Last year the king appointed a national commission to make an overall assessment of the reforms needed by the education system as a whole. The first concrete results were expected in October 1997.

The 1996-98 National Indicative Programme for Morocco allocated a total of ECU 50 000 000 to basic education in that country ((I.e., 11% of the total 1996-98 National Indicative Programme for Morocco. )). The first part was to finance an investment programme for building and repairing schools in rural areas. This is now in the planning stage. Phase Two would see the Commission aiding a programme of essential - though delicate - reforms, in close collaboration with the World Bank.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1543/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (5 May 1997)

Subject: Phosphate ester poisoning due to the use of Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen

The flea-repellant Tiguvon (Fenthion) manufactured by Bayer Leverkusen can be administered in different forms. Tiguvon 10 is intended for cats over 2 kg in weight. The use of Tiguvon 20 is recommended for dogs weighing between 3 and 10 kg, while dogs with a body weight of more than 10 kg should be treated with Tiguvon 20 G. People who have repeatedly treated their pets with Tiguvon (Fenthion) have suffered serious phosphate ester poisoning. As the Commission was unable to answer my Question E-1470/96 ((OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 76. )) on the same subject, I would ask the Council to answer the following questions as a matter of urgency:

Which institution examines the mode of action of ethical and freely available antiparasitics, especially for their harmlessness to humans and animals and their compatibility with the environment? Is the Council aware that manufacturers wishing to continue marketing products registered before 1978 were required to submit the results of all tests by the end of 1996? Did they do so? Is this governed by EU legislation? Were products authorized after 1978 adequately tested?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1533/97, E-1535/97, E-1537/97, E-1539/97, E-1541/97, E-1543/97, E-1545/97 and E-1547/97 (25 September 1997)

The Council has to date not received any proposal from the Commission directly concerning the multiple problems raised by the Honourable Member. However, the Council would draw the Member's attention to the fact that at this stage there is not yet any Community harmonization of the status of these products which are treated, depending on the evaluation of Member States, in particular as medicinal or biocidal products. Bearing this in mind, as regards certain aspects of the questions put by the Honourable Member, the Council would point out that:

- following the 19th adaptation to technical and scientific progress ((OJ L 258, 11.10.1993, p. 29.)) of Annex 1 to Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, the Annex lists FENTHION under No 015-048-00-8 in the index ((OJ L 258A, 16.10.1993, p. 212.));

- under the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a future Directive concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market ((Common position of the Council of 20.12.1996, OJ C 69, 5.3.1997, p. 13.)), Annex V to which covers antiparasitics, these products may be marketed only after their active substances have been entered on a positive Community list and after a detailed assessment of the risks they might entail notably for human health.