ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0673/97 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (26 February 1997)

Subject: European funds for the Abruzzi

The Abruzzi Region was classified by the European Union for the 1994-1996 period as a region lagging behind in its development (Objective 1).

At present the Commission seems to intend to give the Abruzzi Region a two-year extension to enable it to spend the unspent funds still at the disposal of the regional spending authorities in the Abruzzi; this extension, however, does not appear to mean that the Abruzzi will continue to be classified as an Objective 1 region.

Can the Commission state whether the Abruzzi will continue to be able to benefit from Community funds and if so, which?

Can the Commission state whether any state aid to the Abruzzi Region within the meaning of Article 92 (2)c will be regarded as compatible with the common market, given that the Abruzzi Region does not appear to be included among the so-called regions lagging behind in their development?

Can the Commission give prior authorization to the Italian Government to grant the Abruzzi Region national aids such as those provided under Laws 488/92, 341/95 and 44/86?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 March 1997)

Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial institutions, as amended ((OJ L 193, 31. 7.1993. )), lays down that Abruzzi's eligibility under Objective 1 would end on 31 December 1996.

The Italian authorities have asked for a two-year extension of the time limits for national commitments and payments on Objective 1 structural assistance in Abruzzi for the period 1994-96. This does not mean that the region's eligibility for Objective 1 is similarly extended; it simply allows Italy to complete implementation of the 1994-96 programmes.

The Commission has just approved the extensions in question, thereby allowing Abruzzi to implement commitments until the end of 1998 under the regional and multiregional programmes in the 1994-96 Objective 1 Community Support Framework for Italy which are part-funded by the European Regional Development Fund, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. The extensions apply only to Community commitments adopted on or before 31 December 1996 for each type of assistance.

In the case of the European Social Fund, Community funding has already been allocated to Abruzzi for Objectives 3 and 4 for 1997-99.

On the issue of aid schemes, the Commission is studying with the Italian authorities the new map of the areas falling within the scope of Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty for the 1997-99 period.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1396/97 by Olivier Dupuis (ARE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: UN Decade for the World's Indigenous People

In the light of the UN Decade for the World's Indigenous People, whose first quarter has almost passed, can the Commission indicate the projects through which it has supported the indigenous peoples of New Caledonia in 1995 and 1996?

Can the Commission list the names of the projects and the amounts of financial support it has given for all the different financial instruments it has at its disposition to support the indigenous peoples of New Caledonia?

Does the Commission feel that it has adequately reacted to the resolutions of the UN General Assembly which has called upon states and intergovernmental organizations to promote the rights and interests of the indigenous people living in their territories, as reflected by the title of the Decade: 'Indigenous People: Partners in Action'?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)

The Commission does not pursue a policy of solely targetting the indigenous peoples of New Caledonia in its programmmes. Through the 6th and 7th indicative programmes it provides financial aid amounting to 20.4 MECU in support of the government's policies of rural development and economic diversification. 56% of this aid is allocated to the sectors of agriculture, human resource development and infrastructure in the type of projects which will benefit indigenous peoples. A list of these projects is forwarded direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament. Consequently, the Commission feels that it has reacted adequately to the resolutions of the United Nations general assembly.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1017/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Asbestos in the offices of the Community institutions

The use of asbestos in the construction of office buildings used by the European institutions has generated a great deal of controversy. Following closure of the Berlaymont building the special analyses commissioned by the parents' association, justifiably sceptical of the assurances given by the Brussels buildings directorate which refused to admit the presence of asbestos at the Uccles school, proved the presence of asbestos and showed that its use had not yet been halted. Although not so widely used asbestos is still produced and is present in the construction of the new buildings in Brussels: 13 out of 20 samples taken at the EAS were positive as were 16 out of 19 at the REM, 1 out of 8 at the RMA, 2 out of 11 at the MAE, 1 out of 17 at the MON and 7 out of 20 at the LEO.

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that the directives on the control of asbestos in buildings are complied with?

How does it intend to protect the health of the public and of those who work and live in premises in which the presence of asbestos has been confirmed by exhaustive analyses?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0892/97 and E-1017/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)

On 19 September 1983 the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, adopted Directive 83/477/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC) ((OJ L 263, 24.9.1983. )). This Directive was amended, also on the Commission's initiative, by Council Directive 91/382/EEC of 25 June 1991 ((OJ L 206, 29.7.1991. )).

These two Directives, which contain prohibitions and value limits to be applied to asbestos in buildings, have been transposed into the legislation of the Member States.

Belgium has introduced equal or stricter standards than those provided for in the above Directives into its general regulation on protection at work. In addition to these provisions, a Belgian ministerial order requires every employer in Belgium to prepare a table showing the asbestos levels in his premises.

In its buildings in Brussels, the Commission not only complies with the two directives mentioned above but also with Belgian legislation where it is stricter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1351/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Women officials in the Commission

What percentage of B-grade officials employed by the Commission are women?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1347/97, E-1349/97, E-1350/97 and E-1351/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The numbers of women in the different categories in the Commission, as at March 1997, are as follows:

>TABLE>

These figures concern only permanent officials on the operational budget and do not include officials under the research budget, or temporary and auxiliary staff.

It can be noted that the Commission has set annual objectives for female recruitment in order to increase the number of women in all levels of category A, including management posts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1108/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Accession of Central and Eastern European countries to the EU and the enlargement of NATO

Although the extension of the Atlantic Alliance to the countries of Eastern Europe is the subject of great interest in some quarters (Prague, Warsaw and Budapest), elsewhere (i.e. in Moscow) there are signs of a worrying stalemate caused by the demands being made about defining the precise role Russia is to play in the European security system.

However, the accession of the CEECs (to NATO and subsequently to the EU) is an issue which exclusively concerns those countries and should therefore not be made subject to Russia's prior approval.

Can the Council therefore, in the pre-accession talks, bear in mind the sovereign will of the applicant countries, without opting for an arrangement with limited rights and obligations?

Can it also make the pre-accession talks subject to the signing of the NATO decision not to install nuclear arms on the territory of the would-be new Member States?

Finally, can the Council allow the creation of facilities and the transfer of troops to ensure that none of the applicant countries find themselves caught in an uncomfortable and vulnerable grey area?

Answer (16 June 1997)

The accession of Central and Eastern European countries to the European Union and the enlargement of NATO are two separate processes. The Council is not competent to express any views as regards the enlargement of NATO and the relevant countries.

As regards the enlargement of the European Union, the Council would point out that, since the European Council meeting in Essen in December 1994, an accession preparation strategy has been put in place which, supplementing the framework established by the Europe Association Agreements, is intended to gradually bring the CEEC closer to the Union by means of a series of instruments including, in particular, the White Paper on integration into the internal market and the structured dialogue at ministerial level. The criteria for assessing the situation of each applicant country were defined at the Copenhagen European Council.

The necessary decisions to initiate accession negotiations will be taken by the Council after the Intergovernmental Conference in the light of the outcome of the Conference and of the opinions and reports to be submitted by the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1177/97 by Gastone Parigi (NI) to the Commission (3 April 1997)

Subject: Export refunds for cheese

The Commission's decision to cut export refunds for cheese by 30% is mainly affecting products sold in the United States, including in particular Italian cheeses such as Grana Padano, Parmigiana Reggiano and Pecorino Sardo, the cheese most widely exported to the United States.

Will the Commission block the decision of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products and renegotiate the mechanisms governing world trade, so as to make provision for export refunds for cheese and allow Italy to use the private storage scheme for Pecorino Sardo?

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

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the reply to written question E-2836/96 ((OJ C 91, 20.3.1997. )), in which the Commission detailed the constraints arising from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and indicated the instruments with which it can, on the one hand, comply with its obligations under this agreement and, on the other hand, safeguard Community exports in international trade in milk products to the greatest possible extent.

The Commission can confirm that it is continuously seeking to ensure that the negative impact of the restriction on subsidized exports is distributed in a balanced fashion over the production of the different Member States. The decision to reduce refunds by 30% for cheese exports to the United States falls entirely within this context, and this is why the Commission does not intend to go back on its decision.

In line with the Honourable Member's suggestion, an aid scheme for the private storage of Pecorino cheese will commence on 1 May 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1242/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (8 April 1997)

Subject: Reform of the common organization of the market in rice

Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 ((OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.)) has altered the common organization of the market in rice in implementation of the GATT agreements. The new rules governing trade arrangements with third countries create the possibility of introducing the 'recovery system', with all the disadvantages which that entails. Furthermore, the basic Regulation has laid down a programme to cut the price per hectare under cultivation. To keep the Community market in balance with the customary import flow, provision has been made to lower the intervention price in line with the gradual reduction in the equivalent tariffs applicable under the GATT agreements. However, the numerous tariff concessions granted by the Community to various third countries and the excessive increase in the import flow from the OCT severely disrupted the normal workings of competition in 1996.

In view of this situation and the risk that intervention might be required for a huge volume of the crop in 1997:

1. Does the Commission not believe that the recently reformed common market organization is already failing to serve its purpose?

2. Does it not believe that the actual prospects for Community rice growing need to be considered carefully, not least in the light of the new directions that the Community has been seeking to impart to its policies, which have led to sweeping changes in terms of regulation and strategy since December 1995?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1997)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties faced by the Community rice sector following the increase in rice production and the upward trend in imports.

The Commission has therefore taken several measures to restore market balance and prevent recourse to intervention as much as possible. These measures include, in particular, a safeguard clause for indica rice from the overseas countries and territories and an invitation to tender for exports of indica rice.

The first stage of the reform adopted in 1995 enters into force during the 1997/98 marketing year and involves, in particular, a price reduction offset by aid per hectare. This reduction will make Community rice more competitive.

Under the circumstances, it is too early to change the system in force. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it is monitoring trends on the rice market very closely and that it will propose the necessary measures to ensure harmonious development.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1095/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Human rights in the EU following the IGC

At the Dublin European Council meeting in December 1996, the Irish Presidency proposed the inclusion in the revised Treaties of a new Article 3c, which would expressly protect the rights and freedoms laid down in the European human rights convention. It also proposed that new Articles Fa and 3c should provide for channels to allow a response to any human rights violations by the Member States.

Can the Commission comment on the negotiations for the inclusion in the new Treaty of these proposals? What obstacles does it envisage to their inclusion?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)

The aim of the two proposals for articles referred to by the Honourable Member was to establish the general principle of respect for fundamental rights binding the Union's Member States and the Union itself.

In this context, Article Fa provides for the possibility of adopting measures in the event of serious violation by a Member State of the general principles to which the Union subscribes, of which respect for fundamental rights is a cornerstone. The Intergovernmental Conference saw the emergence of a broad consensus on this proposal during recent negotiations.

The idea behind the insertion of a new Article 3c in the EC Treaty was to give Court of Justice direct and explicit power to monitor respect of fundamental rights by the Community.

Following the Court's opinion of 27 March 1996 declaring that there was no legal basis in the existing Treaties enabling the Communities to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, it appeared to the negotiators at the Intergovernmental Conference that the best way to improve protection of fundamental rights in the Community was to confer direct internal judicial review jurisdiction on the Court of Justice. To that end, this Article 3c took over the wording of the current Article F(2), thereby confining that jurisdiction to Community matters alone.

Independently of the fact that the Commission shared the view of several delegations on the importance of making provision for a legal basis which would make it possible to adhere to the 1950 Convention in the future, if all the technical and political conditions were met, it urged that the Court's review jurisdiction should not be based solely on the EC Treaty.

The addendum of 20 March 1997 to the general framework prepared by the Irish Presidency in December 1996 accordingly drew back from the idea of inserting this new Article 3c. Article F(2) would be left as it is. This Article requires the Union, and not only the Community, to respect fundamental rights, with a corollary reform of Article L of the Treaty to make it possible to invoke Article F(2) in the courts.

The Commission feels that the reform of both Articles F and L is the minimum required to strengthen the judicial guarantees underpinning the system for the protection of fundamental rights.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1210/97 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1997)

Subject: Cost/benefit analysis methodology discussions in the Commission

Can Mr Santer please make public an account of the discussions presently at hand in the Commission on cost/benefit analysis and impact assessment? What tendering process has been carried out to employ consultants or experts to advise the Commission on these issues? I refer in particular to the contractual status or agreement of former members of the Molitor group. Considering that the Molitor group has now finalized its report, under what status are former members of this group now participating in Commission discussions? To what extent have the social partners and other interest groups representing all sectors of society been involved in these discussions?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

Since the adoption on 16 January 1996 of its general guidelines on legislative policy, referred to in the 'Better lawmaking' reports ((CSE(96) 7. CSE(95) 580. )), the Commission has taken steps to rationalize and modernize its impact assessments. This work does indeed involve consideration of the possibilities of introducing cost-benefit analysis methodology.

The Commission is open to the views of various sectors of the economy and society, and is examining the experiences of the various national authorities, while taking into account the views of individual experts.

When the Commission concludes service contracts, it complies with Community legislation on procurement. To date, no contract has been awarded to former members of the independent group of experts on legislative and administrative simplification, known as the Molitor group.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/97 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (7 April 1997)

Subject: Age limits in recruitment to EU institutions

At the Strasbourg plenary session in February I received a written reply to my oral question on 'Age limits in recruitment to EU institutions: advertisements in Ireland'. 'What arrangements is the Commission making for advertising its recruitment competitions in Ireland after the adoption of the Employment Equality Bill 1996 which prohibits age discrimination in published employment advertisements?'

The answer received makes absolutely no reference to the question I asked. What I was seeking was the Commission reaction to a situation where it looks likely that a Member State will enact legislation which will (amongst other things) prevent the Commission from advertising posts with age limits. As some other countries are considering similar type legislation how does this affect the recruitment of staff for European Institutions? Would it not be better to obviate a potential problem by ending age discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1997)

Under Annex III of the staff regulations of the Community institutions, age limits in competitions for Community institutions are permissible. The staff regulations create an autonomous regime and therefore are, like all other Council regulations, binding and directly effective in the Member States.

Thus, Irish legislation could not preclude the inclusion of age limits in notices of competitions published in Ireland by the institutions. On the other hand, nothing in current Community law prevents a Member State from adopting legislation which prohibits age limits in published national employment advertisements.

Age limits, along with other recruitment criteria, such as qualifications and professional experience, are set out in the notices of competitions issued by the Community institutions and these from the legal basis on which the selection boards work. The notices of competitions for all the institutions are published in the Official journal. This is to ensure that the recruitment criteria are applied equally to citizens of all Member States.

Given that the Commission recruits officials from 15 Member States, particular management aspects need to be taken into account. The use of age limits in the Community competitions has been one instrument in managing a high number of applicants.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1128/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (24 March 1997)

Subject: Tourists and whales in the Canary Islands

Given the concern of most Member States for the protection of animals, is the Commission aware of the harassment by tourist vessels of families of whales in Tenerife and does it plan to devise any measures, aid or cooperation for the Cetological Institute of the Canary Islands to protect the whales from intrusive tourist vessels?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1997)

Only one cetacean species, the bottle-nose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), is included in Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )). All the species of this family are included in Annex IV to the Directive.

To comply with the Directive and conserve the habitat of the bottle-nose dolphin, the Government of the Canaries recently proposed two special conservation areas for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. It has also published Decree 320/1995 governing tourist activity in respect of observation of cetaceans in the region's waters.

With regard to possible Commission aid for the protection of cetaceans, the 'Proyecto de apoyo a la conservación de Caretta caretta y tursiops truncatus en las islas Canarias' project, put forward by the Consejería de politíca territorial of the Government of the Canaries under the Life-Nature 1997 programme, is at the evaluation stage.

The Commission is currently supporting a project that aims to demonstrate the potential of voluntary financial schemes within the European tourism industry, as an approach to generating monetary contributions from visitors towards the conservation and tourism management of tourism destinations. One of the schemes consists of an extensive research exercise amongst visitors in Tenerife based on the conservation of dolphins and whales. Another scheme is the promotion of conservation holidays concerned with pilot whale watching in Tenerife, through attracting tourists to pay for the cost of research on the effects of tourism on the cetaceans of the area. The project, selected in 1995 under the Community action plan to assist tourism, will be completed by July 1997.