ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0956/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (13 March 1997)

Subject: EULEP project and experiments on animals

In June 1993, the ENEA notified the relevant authorities, in accordance with the Italian legislation on animal experiments, that it was conducting experiments at the Casaccia-Roma CRE on 500 mice in order to study the effects of small doses of ionizing radiation, as part of the European EULEP project funded by the Commission.

Is the Commission aware of these experiments? How much financial assistance was provided and what innovative results were obtained? Is the Commission aware that these tests, in which the animals were irradiated with a beam of fission neutrons, were carried out without using anaesthetics, without applying for permission not to use them in accordance with Italian law and without the laboratory having received the necessary authorization - on the date of the notification - from the Italian Ministry of Health?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1997)

The Commission has supported the European late effects project group (EULEP) via the Nuclear fission safety programme in 1993 to stimulate the interaction between research workers studying the late effects of ionising radiation. The research group at the European nuclear energy agency (ENEA) were supported, in 1993, as one partner in a multinational contract to study the induction of cancer by low doses of neutron radiation using mice. The contribution to the ENEA laboratory was ECU 80 000 for a period of 21 months.

Results from animal studies contribute to the assessment of the risk to man from exposure to neutron radiation for which there is very little information from epidemiology. Scientific risk assessment is the basis for the preparation of Community legislation such as the Commission's directive laying down the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation ((doc. COM(90) 328. )).

Ionising radiation cannot be detected by any of the normal senses. Consequently, the mice would not feel the neutron irradiation and would, therefore, not need to be anaesthetised. After exposure the animals were followed until they died naturally.

The Commission expects contractors to execute the research within the relevant legal and ethical restrictions but would not normally be aware of specific situations. The group at ENEA requested permission to do the experiments on 2 June 1993 in response to the provisional explanatory circular from the Italian Ministry of health issued in April 1993. The final circular was issued by the Ministry on the 22 April 1994. The group continues to adapt to conform with the requirements of the Italian Ministry of health as these have evolved during the recent years.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/97 by Josu Imaz San Miguel (PPE) to the Commission (4 March 1997)

Subject: List of projects submitted by the Spanish Government for inclusion in the URBAN Community programme

The Spanish Government submitted a list of cities and corresponding projects for inclusion in the URBAN programme. Of the 12 cities proposed, nine (Cordoba, Aviles, Santander, Albacete, Leon, Castellon, Pontevedra, Telde and Murcia) correspond to Objective 1, a further two (Saragossa and Santa Coloma de Gramanet) to Objective 2 and one (Palma, Majorca) corresponds to neither.

Other projects were not included in the list, for instance that put forward by the municipal authorities of the San Sebastian Metropolitan Region for the urban renewal of the Bay of Pasaia, despite the difficult socio-economic situation in the region, reflected in an unemployment rate of 22.6%, despite the serious decline in the urban fabric and despite the fact that it meets the criteria for priority objectives for action set out in the guidelines established in Communication 94/C 180/02 on the URBAN programme. Moreover, the region is also included in Objective 2 of the Structural Funds.

Does the Commission consider that the list of projects submitted by the Spanish Government complies with the guidelines of 2/3 for Objective 1 and, preferably, 1/3 for Objective 2, as set out in Communication 94/C 180/02 on the URBAN programme?

Does the Commission consider that the exclusion of the strategic plan for San Sebastian and Bay of Pasaia from the list of projects submitted was justified, particularly given that only 16% of the projects submitted concern Objective 2 areas and given the socio-economic situation in the region concerned?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (10 April 1997)

The Commission has allocated 77.6 mecu to Spain for the extension of the URBAN Community Initiative. Of this budget, cities in objective 1 regions receive 56.2 mecu, and 21.4 mecu is allocated to cities outside objective 1 regions. The Commission considers that this is justified by the general priority for objective 1 within structural policy.

The guidelines for the extension of URBAN differ from those of 1994 to which the Honourable Member refers. As regards the allocation of the budget outside objective 1 regions, no preference is foreseen for objective 2 regions ((OJ C 200, 10.7.1996. )).

The choice of the individual cities is the responsibility of the the Member State. The Honourable Member should therefore direct his specific question on the case of San Sebastian and Bahía de Pasaia to the Spanish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0984/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 March 1997)

Subject: EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in Italy

Can the Commission specify how much funding Italy received in total from the EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in 1996, giving a breakdown

per chapter (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silkworms, fruit and vegetables, other plant sectors or products, the vine-growing sector, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef and veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat, other animal product aid measures, refunds on processed agricultural products, refunds in connection with EU food aid, the distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons in the Community, accompanying measures, rural development measures related to the operation of markets, other measures, income aid and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund), and

per procedure (export refunds, compensatory pricing aid, 'area' aid, aid per head of stock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawal and similar operations, compensatory amounts, accompanying measures for reform of the CAP and public storage expenditure)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0974/97, E-0975/97, E-0976/97, E-0977/97, E-0978/97, E-0979/97, E-0980/97, E-0981/97, E-0982/97, E-0983/97, E-0984/97, E-0985/97, E-0986/97, E-0987/97 and E-0988/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 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 P-0904/97 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (5 March 1997)

Subject: Commission's position on the Care and Fair initiative

In its answer to my Question P-0050/97 ((OJ C 138, 5.5.1997, p. 182. )) on the Rugmark label the Commission expressed general scepticism regarding so-called fair trade labels for goods manufactured without using child labour.

Another action against child labour, the European carpet dealers' Care and Fair initiative, has proposed placing a 2% levy on all EU imports of hand-woven carpets in order to combat child labour. It stated in a circular at the end of January 1997 that the Commission had in principle welcomed this initiative and had said that it would study it.

Is this statement by Care and Fair accurate?

A further publication (Peter Siegel, Das Terra-Prinzip, Stuttgart 1996) refers to a positive response from EU Commissioners. Which Commissioners have commented favourably on the proposal for such an import levy?

When did the talks referred to by Care and Fair take place?

What further steps does the Commission plan to take in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

In June 1995 Commission officials met a group of importers of hand-made carpets representing the 'Care and Fair' initiative which aims to raise money in Europe to be used for welfare projects in Asia benefiting young ex-carpet workers and their families through a voluntary levy of 1% on the value of imported carpets by participating importers.

At the June 1995 meeting both sides agreed on the need to find practical and effective means to tackle the problem of child labour in the hand-made carpet industry and it was the proposal of the Oriental carpet importers' association that a blanket 2% import levy be imposed on all hand-made carpets entering the Community, payable by importers. The duty so collected by the customs authorities in the Member States would then be passed on to 'Care and Fair' for the benefit of their welfare projects.

Consultations following this meeting indicated that the imposition of a levy of this kind was firstly not practical and secondly that the Commission could not support an initiative based on imposing levies of this nature as it is contrary to the legal principle that budget revenues may not be raised for the purpose of financing specific actions.

The Commission is not aware of any of its members having officially expressed a favourable view on this particular import tax proposal.

The Commission is currently finalising a project with the International labour organisation (ILO) to address the problem of child labour in Pakistan. It is hoped that the experience gained in the implementation of this project will enable the Commission to plan further projects and initiatives in other countries where child labour is prevalent.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0843/97 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Stability pact

Doubt has been cast on the effectiveness of the stability pact by a report, recently drawn up by Salomon Brothers, which attributes its main failing to the complexity to the procedure applicable in the event of excess deficit.

Is the Commission aware of this report? If so, could it say what it thinks of the conclusions thereto?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1997)

The excessive deficit procedure is complex, and is set out in considerable detail in Article 104c of the EC Treaty. To ensure that such a complex procedure will in practice function in a smooth and timely manner the European Council of Dublin agreed a stability and growth pact. This pact will provide both a preventive early-warning system for identifying and correcting budgetary slippages before they bring the deficit above the 3% ceiling, and a dissuasive set of rules to put pressure on Member States to avoid excessive deficits or to take measures to correct them quickly if they do occur.

It will consist of three elements. Preventive aspects will be enshrined in a Council regulation to reinforce elements of the multilateral surveillance procedure set out in Article 103 of the EC Treaty. The dissuasive elements will be enshrined in a Council regulation to speed up and clarify the excessive deficit procedure set out in Article 104c of the Treaty. The parties to the pact (the Commission, the Council and Member States) will give their political commitment to its full and timely implementation in a European Council resolution.

The regulation to be adopted under Article 104c will assist in the smooth and timely functioning of the excessive deficit procedure in a number of ways. It will provide definitions of key provisions in the Treaty, establish deadlines for each step of the procedures, and define guidelines for the type and scale of sanctions to imposed.

All parties to the pact will have a clear understanding of the criteria and guidelines which will be used by the Commission and Council in the taking of relevant decisions and the time scale involved. For these reasons, the Commission considers that the stability and growth pact represents a crucial element in the creation of sustainable and successful economic and monetary union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (25 February 1997)

Subject: Market in medical equipment in Greece

A Ministry of Health report into the finances of the national health service in Greece (Vima of 26 January and 2 February 1997) shows that the prices paid by Greek hospitals for medical equipment and supplies are, on average, three to five times higher than those paid by hospitals in England.

As a result of this overpricing, there is a huge outflow of funds from the health service, deficits are growing etc. In view of the fact that allegations have also been made about unorthodox practices in the procurement of these supplies and that such variations in price are in any case evidence per se that competition for supplying the equipment is not working, will the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of this problem and will investigate the matter, and

2. what immediate steps it will take to normalize the market?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1997)

The Commission was not aware of this problem.

There are no specific Community rules on the pricing of medical equipment. The Commission is prepared to examine any relevant information it might receive regarding the competition rules.

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the Directives on public contracts. Proper application of these Directives by the awarding authorities will produce the requisite transparency of equipment prices and ensure the contract goes to the tender offering the best balance between price and quality.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0392/97 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: Establishment of hairdressers in Germany

Under the German Crafts Code, persons wishing to set up their own hairdressing business in Germany have to hold a master's qualification. Successful completion of a training course is not sufficient.

1. Does the Commission consider this rule to constitute a restriction on freedom of establishment?

2. If it believes that the above rule restricts freedom of establishment within the internal market, what steps will it take to remove the restriction?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (4 April 1997)

Member States are free to lay down rules governing both the taking-up and pursuit of professions. Accordingly, it is for each of them to prescribe, along with the relevant professional regulations, the training to be completed and the conditions to be met for taking up a particular profession.

However, in order to facilitate the free movement of professionals not satisfying the qualification requirements of the host Member State, Community law imposes on the latter a number of obligations vis-à-vis migrants.

As regards hairdressers, Council Directive 82/489/EEC of 19 July 1982 laying down measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services in hairdressing ((OJ L 218, 27.7.1982. )) stipulates that, where in a Member State the taking-up of pursuit of the profession of hairdresser is subject to possession of general, commercial and professional knowledge and ability, that Member State must accept as sufficient evidence of such knowledge and ability the fact that the activities in question have been pursued lawfully in another Member State for at least three years in a self-employed capacity or as a person responsible for managing an undertaking.

As far as the Commission is aware, Germany has correctly transposed the above Directive into national law. However, the Commission is prepared to examine any additional information in the Honourable Member's possession which might indicate that a problem of Community law is involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0830/97 by Karla Peijs (PPE) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Mutual recognition of administrative certificates in the area of VAT

Is a fiscal authority of one Member State, which has to ascertain whether a company established in another Member State is a taxable person and qualifies for a VAT refund within the meaning of the 8th VAT Directive, obliged to recognize a document issued by the fiscal authorities of that Member State, which certifies that the company is part of a fiscal unit and therefore a taxable person?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1997)

Under the common VAT system currently in force, each Member State may treat as a single taxable person persons established within its territory who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organizational links.

In the Member States which exercise this option, all the rights and obligations laid down in VAT legislation attach to the fiscal unit, with the enterprises that make up the latter no longer being treated as individual taxable persons.

These Member States must, therefore, assess the issuing of a certificate attesting to the status of taxable person as part of the VAT refund procedure under the Eighth VAT Directive from the viewpoint of the fiscal unit.

A certificate attesting to the taxable-person status of a fiscal unit and also indicating that a particular enterprise is part of a fiscal unit allows the Member State of refund to make a refund. An indication on the certificate by the Member State of establishment as to the composition of the fiscal unit is to be regarded rather as additional information to be used as deemed appropriate by the Member State of refund.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0538/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (20 February 1997)

Subject: Feasibility studies and TENs

Further to Mr Kinnock's answer to Written Question P-1144/96 ((OJ C 322, 28.10.1996, p. 34. )) given on behalf of the Commission on 7 June 1996, and with reference to the Commission Green paper: Future Noise Policy (COM(96) 540 final), would the Commission define a feasibility study and say how feasibility studies might be used to mitigate noise pollution on TENs routes?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

The definition of feasibility studies varies from one Member State to another and there is no harmonised Community-wide definition.

According to Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid for trans-European networks (TEN) ((OJ L 228, 23.9.1995. )), Community assistance for studies refers to the co-financing of studies related to projects, including preparatory feasibility and evaluation studies and other technical support measures for these studies. This definition is wide enough to cover the sort of study mentioned in the question.

The initiative of formulating and presenting proposals for co-financing of studies for specific TEN projects, including environmental studies, lies with the Member States which should present their proposals according to the provisions of the Regulation.

On a similar basis, the European regional development fund and the Cohesion fund may cofinance feasibility and environmental studies proposed by the Member States for TEN projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Consumer policy

With regard to budget heading B5-102: Consumer information, can the Commission say whether subsidies have been granted for Italy and, if so, for which organizations and for which activities?

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 (25 April 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0626/97 by Luigi Moretti (NI) to the Commission (4 March 1997)

Subject: State aid

Under Decree Law No 669 of 31 December 1996, the Italian Government introduced subsidies for those buying cars in Italy.

Although this decree law does not introduce measures which benefit particular firms manufacturing cars, it does penalize car dealers who pursue their activities outside Italy, particularly those operating near its borders.

Does this measure comply with European Union law on competition rules and state aid?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

As far as the Commission knows, the law adopted by the Italian government provides for the aid measures in favour of consumers to be paid irrespective of the origin of the car. Non-Italian as well as non-European cars are included. Further the law does not include any condition, e.g. technical specifications, that would be more likely to be fulfilled by certain producers. Because of this, it appears that the law is not caught by the state aid provisions (in particular Article 92(1)) laid down by the EC Treaty.

This case is parallel to the cases of incentives to consumers for the renewal of old cars or for the purchase of low-polluting cars which have been in force in other Member States, where because of the non-dicriminatory nature of the incentive, the Commission was of the view that it did not favour certain car producers and thus did not infringe Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0814/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies to associations, NGOs and various other bodies

With regard to heading B7-611 (Role of women in development), can the Commission provide a complete list of associations, NGOs and other bodies benefiting from Community subsidies and the exact amount of these subsidies for the last completed budgetary year, i.e. 1996?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

British Council: ECU 654 541. Training on gender issues in 10 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, targeted chiefly at political and operational decision-makers.

Royal Tropical Institute (KIT): ECU 736 029. Studies, technical assistance and follow-up on the integration of gender issues into cooperation policies, strategies, programmes and projects.

Cowiconsult (Denmark): ECU 76 173. Study to define criteria for assessing implementation of the Council Resolution of December 1995 on the integration of gender issues into development policy.

Framework contract for the provision of technical assistance on the integration of gender issues into policies, strategies, programmes and projects: ECU 600 000.

APDC (Asia, Pacific Development Centre), a Malaysian NGO: follow-up of post-Beijing activities in Asia (regional coordination): ECU 271 778.

Esperanza Foundation (Colombian NGO): pilot project for research, awareness, collection and distribution of information on trafficking of women in Colombia: ECU 148 679.

WIDE (Network of women in Development in Europe): support for Latin American NGOs for follow-up initiatives to Beijing conference: ECU 286 860.

ACORD (Asian centre for organization research and development), an Indian NGO: awareness and training of instructors in gender issues to bolster NGOs' know-how: ECU 114 459.

Oxfam (UK and Ireland): research on the role of NGOs in gender questions in Lebanon: ECU 35 710.

IDF (International Dialogue Foundation), Netherlands: financial contribution to organizing a seminar in Amman from 7 to 9 March 1997 on family relations in societies undergoing change: ECU 42 514.