ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Information on funds used to develop the north-west region of Italy in 1995-1996

What funds were allocated by the European Union in 1995 and 1996 to the north-west region of Italy (Lombardy, Piedmont, Liguria and Valle d'Aosta) and for what purposes, with particular reference to:

1. European Regional Development Fund;

2. European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) - Guidance Section;

3. European Social Fund;

4. European Union research programmes;

5. European Union energy programmes;

6. European Union environment programmes;

7. Other European Union programmes?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (7 August 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-1874/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (30 May 1997)

Subject: Failure by Italy to comply with the directive on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes

With reference to the reply to my Written Question E-2760/96 of 21 October 1996 ((OJ C 91, 20.3.1997, p. 29. )), will the Commission say whether the meeting with the Italian authorities due to take place in April was held and what the outcome was?

If the meeting was not held or if the results were unsatisfactory, will the Commission bring infringement proceedings against Italy as it threatened to do in the answers to Written Questions 2455/92 ((OJ C 141, 19.5.1993, p. 32. )), 1747/93 ((OJ C 46, 14.2.1994, p. 34. )) and 2760/96 referred to above, bearing in mind that Italian legislative decree No 116/1992, in which Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )) was transposed, 'fail to comply with Article 17 of the directive'?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

Following the Commission request for information concerning the correct implementation of Article 17 of Directive 86/609/EEC which provides for regular checking of the registers by the authorities, the Italian authorities have pointed out that under national law, the veterinary service within the local health department is required regularly to inspect the premises of those who rear and provide animals used for experimental purposes or for other scientific purposes.

That inspection is carried out by the veterinary service in accordance with Article 24 of the veterinary policy regulation that was approved by Decree No 320 of 8 February 1954, and by Circular No 18 of 5 May 1993 and Circular No 8 of 22 April 1994.

In addition the Italian authorities have pointed out that under the aegis of the prevention department, the guidelines concerning the reorganization of public veterinary health provide instructions that must be followed by the regions. Those instructions concern the reorganization of the national health system - by Decrees No 502 of 30 December 1992 and No 517 of 7 December 1993 which, within each local health unit, provides for a 'C' unit which is responsible, in particular, for checking the well being and use of animals intended for experiments.

On the basis of that information the Commission feels that it is not necessary to initiate any infringement procedure against Italy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0735/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B4-1009 would the Commission give figures for the total amount of appropriations allocated in 1996 to expenditure on:

- studies

- meetings of experts

- conferences and congresses

- information and publications.

Can the Commission also give figures for these four types of expenditure expressed as a proportion of the total appropriations allocated to the heading in question and state whether it considers this to be a reasonable proportion.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0698/97, E-0699/97, E-0700/97, E-0701/97, E-0702/97, E-0703/97, E-0704/97, E-0705/97, E-0706/97, E-0707/97, E-0708/97, E-0709/97, E-0710/97, E-0711/97, E-0712/97, E-0713/97, E-0714/97, E-0715/97, E-0716/97, E-0717/97, E-0718/97, E-0719/97, E-0720/97, E-0721/97, E-0722/97, E-0723/97, E-0724/97, E-0725/97, E-0726/97, E-0727/97, E-0728/97, E-0729/97, E-0730/97, E-0731/97, E-0732/97, E-0733/97, E-0734/97, E-0735/97, E-0736/97, E-0737/97, E-0738/97, E-0739/97, E-0740/97, E-0741/97, E-0742/97, E-0743/97, E-0744/97, E-0745/97, E-0746/97, E-0747/97, E-0748/97, E-0749/97, E-0750/97, E-0751/97, E-0752/97, E-0753/97, E-0754/97, E-0755/97, E-0756/97, E-0757/97, E-0758/97, E-0759/97, E-0760/97, E-0761/97, E-0762/97, E-0763/97, E-0764/97, E-0765/97, E-0766/97, E-0767/97, E-0768/97, E-0769/97, E-0770/97, E-0771/97, E-0772/97, E-0773/97, E-0774/97, E-0775/97, E-0776/97, E-0777/97, E-0778/97, E-0779/97, E-0780/97, E-0781/97, E-0782/97, E-0783/97, E-0784/97, E-0785/97, E-0786/97, E-0787/97, E-0788/97, E-0789/97 and E-0790/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will continue its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1963/97 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: EU species protection legislation and the situation of migratory birds

In Europe migratory birds are severely endangered. Ornithologists have recently pointed out that since the beginning of the 20th century populations of the 70 indigenous species of migratory birds have declined by 70%. They consider that the wide-ranging impact of humans on the ecosystem is responsible for this situation. The experts' main criticisms are directed at the loss of valuable habitats, the lack of adequate resting areas, the use of pesticides and other environmental toxins and the hunting of animals.

1. What steps has the Commission taken to improve significantly the situation of these endangered species of migratory birds?

2. Does the Commission consider the efforts of the European Union in the field of environmental and species protection to be adequate in view of the tardy or sometimes non-existent transposition of EU environmental and species protection legislation in the Member States?

3. How does the Commission intend to improve the situation as regards the transposition of legislation?

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

In its coordinating role the Commission monitors progress by the Member States responsible for implementing Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )). The Community provides financial support under Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment ((OJ L 181, 20.7.1996. )) to assist conservation actions for endangered bird species and their habitats in areas classified as special protection areas under Directive 79/409/EEC. Under this regulation action plans have recently been prepared for globally threatened bird species in Europe.

The Commission is of the view that many Member States have not yet respected all their obligations under this directive, particularly with regard to a sufficient level of classification as special protection areas of the most suitable territories for endangered bird species listed in Annex I as well as for migratory bird species.

The Commission opens legal proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty where there is evidence that Member States are failing to respect their obligations under this directive. There are at present proceedings against several Member States for failure to provide a sufficient number and area of special protection areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2010/97 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Eurostat statistics on per capita GDP in the Algarve

In a recent report on development in European regions, Eurostat gave the figure for GDP in the Algarve as 74% of the Community average, an increase of 15 points from 1993 to 1994 (from 59 to 74%). The figure for Andalusia, which borders on the Algarve, was given as 57% of the Community average. Given the level of development of the two regions, these figures are hard to understand and somewhat contradictory.

Will the Commission provide a full explanation of this abrupt increase in wealth, explaining what criteria lie behind this distortion and supplying a comparative table of the criteria used in 1993 and 1994? Will it also say what criteria were used for Andalusia?

Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

The figures of 59% and 74% referred to by the Honourable Member are not comparable.

As explained in 'Statistics in Focus - the Regions', which sets out the results, national figures for gross domestic product (GDP) are regionalized for each Member State on the basis of the most recent regional structure of gross value added, as transmitted by the national statistical institutes.

When the estimates for 1993 were being made, the most recent data for Portugal related to 1990. Regional per capita GDP for the Algarve, expressed as a percentage of the Community average, was estimated at 59%.

In 1996, the National Statistical Institute of Portugal (INE) furnished the Commission with revised information for the period 1988-1992. These new data took into account the first results of ongoing work to improve the methodology of national and regional accounts in Portugal. The new data led to a revision of regional GDP for the Algarve, which is now estimated at 73% of the Community average for 1993 and 74% for 1994.

The corresponding data for Andalusia are 58% in 1993 and 57% in 1994, but it is difficult to make a direct comparison between the two regions. Andalusia (approximately 87 300 km2 and 7 million inhabitants) is much bigger than the Algarve (approximately 5 000 km2 and 340 000 inhabitants). Consequently, the Spanish region is much less homogeneous than the Portuguese Province. A more detailed geographical analysis (at NUTS3 level), moreover, shows that per capita GDP in Andalusia varies from 53% of the Community average in Granada Province to 65% in Almeria Province.

Furthermore, the discrepancy between the level and rate of development in the two regions is due to the difference in the structure of gross value added by branch of activity. In particular, the share accounted for by the branch 'Recovery and repair, trade services, catering and accommodation', which includes a large portion of the activities connected with tourism, is 38% in the Algarve, but only 25% in Andalusia.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1740/97 by Johannes Blokland (I-EDN) to the Commission (23 May 1997)

Subject: Implementation of the packaging directive

Does the Commission have details of the state of progress in the Member States as regards recycling percentages for each type of packaging material, as laid down in Article 6(1)(b) and Table 2 of Annex III to Directive 94/62/EC ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. ))?

Can it say what the recycling score is per Member State and type of material in the intervening period (in tonnage, and as a percentage of the total)?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1997)

The time limit to achieve the targets established in Article 6 of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste is 30 June 2001. Commission Decision 97/138/EC ((OJ L 52 of 22.2.1997. )) establishing the formats and the data framework was adopted pursuant to this Directive and in particular Article 12 (3) on information systems. This Decision establishes the formats relating to the database systems on packaging and packaging waste and, as indicated in Article 3, the formats shall be completed on an annual basis, starting with data for the year 1997 and covering the whole of each calendar year, and shall be provided to the Commission within 18 months of the end of the relevant year. The formats shall also be made available to the Commission with the national reports to be completed in accordance with Article 17 of the Directive. The Commission adopted on 27 May 1997 a Decision including the questionnaire on the implementation and application of Directive 94/62/EC. The first report will cover the period from 1998 to 2000 inclusive. Reports are to be sent to the Commission within nine months of the end of the corresponding three year period. These reports will be in the formats established by Decision 97/138/EC.

Accordingly, the Commission does not yet have the information requested. This information should be available in the future following the procedures detailed above.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0105/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (29 January 1997)

Subject: EU funding for the ECMI

Germany and Denmark jointly set up the European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI) in Flensburg, Germany. The Centre monitors the situation of national minorities and other indigenous population groups throughout Europe.

Dr Stefan Troebst was appointed director of the ECMI. He is an historian and reader in Eastern European history at the Free University of Berlin. Mr Troebst has on occasion (most recently in the 'Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung' of 31 July 1996) expressed views on the alleged existence of an Albanian minority in Greece, and he has emerged as an advocate of the annexation of Kosovo to Albania.

His inflammatory remarks on 'Macedonian and Greek nationalism' in the same newspaper raise legitimate questions about the ECMI's entire activities.

This is a very serious matter, and there are reports that a generous subsidy is going to paid to the ECMI under the EU's Interreg programme. The ECMI has already received money from the EU for its establishment.

1. Is the Commission acquainted with the character and the activities of the director of the ECMI, Mr Troebst, who, during the inauguration of the ECMI (on 4 December 1996), went so far as to state that 'if the Pomaks in Greece or Bulgaria were to organize an ethnic movement and demand an independent State, that would be a difficult, but in certain cases, pressing matter'?

2. Has the ECMI - a 'Centre' whose activities could turn out to be a time-bomb for the Balkans as well as other regions of the EU - received funding, or are there plans to fund it, under any EU programme?

3. Is the ECMI directly or indirectly related to any of the EU institutions? If not, should it not be made clear to the Centre that, with its title and with the official involvement of two EU Member States, it is tarnishing the image of the EU, which badly needs a genuinely independent body to monitor minorities and not a 'Centre' with ambiguous and suspicious aims.

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1416/97 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 53. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1772/97 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997)

Subject: Cuts in Community funding for Euro Film News

Euro Film News - the only European audiovisual project so far to be managed by Greece - has been a fruitful and successful enterprise since May 1995. It is now threatened with closure owing to cutbacks in Community funding.

Will the Commission include it among the activities funded by the MEDIA II programme to ensure the continued presence of representatives of the smaller countries of the Union in the film industry, which is generally regarded as essential?

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

Euro Film News is both a newsletter and a bulletin. It has two functions. The first is to gather together articles from newspapers and specialist magazines concerned primarily with the audio-visual industry in countries with a small audio-visual output. The second is to distributing this information to the press, thereby drawing attention to the audio-visual industry in countries with a low output.

Euro Film News started as part of the first Media Programme (1991-1995), with funding from the Greek Government and Scale, one of the Programme's 19 projects.

In line with the two Council decisions on Media's priorities for 1996-2000 ((Decision 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on Media II (development and distribution), and Decision 95/564/EC of 22 December 1995 on Media II (training): OJ L 321, 30.12.1995. )), the focus of attention was shifted in the second Media Programme to three priority areas: training of professionals and development and distribution of audio-visual and cinema works.

As a direct result of this refocusing, all activities organised as part of the nineteen Media schemes, including Scale, were suspended and replaced with new projects. Unfortunately, the new system makes no provision for funding for press publications, even such specialised ones as Euro Film News.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/97 by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Illegal trade in cultural artefacts

For many years, one of the methods used to combat the illegal trade in cultural artefacts has been marking.

Many reports have been drawn up and much work has already been done on this procedure.

Does the Commission intend to carry out a study on this issue with the aim of reaching conclusions about the reliability of marking cultural artefacts?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1997)

The Commission would point out that this question is exactly the same as the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1631/97.

The Commission would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the answer it has already given to that question ((See page 66. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1395/97 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (22 April 1997)

Subject: Restrictions on regional development funds

Regional development funds were provided for the development of airport facilities at Benbecula in the Western Isles. this is an airport also used for military purposes, particularly with reference to the Royal Artillery range and the RAF.

Were any specific restrictions put on the spending of European Union funds on civilian facilities rather than military ones and, if not, why not?

Supplementary answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (13 August 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his oral question H-0494/97 during question time at Parliament's July 1997 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (July 1997). )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (9 June 1997)

Subject: Turkish 'free zones' and action by the Commission

Since I failed to receive a fully satisfactory answer to my Question No H-0317/97 ((Verbatim report of proceedings, 16.5.1997. )), I should like to raise the subject of 'free zones' in Turkey once again.

The answer I received states that 'Commission and Member State representatives' visited several 'free zones' and adds that 'the situation appears to be satisfactory'.

Will the Commission say exactly which 'free zones' were monitored and whether it is considering the possibility of new spot checks in these zones by the UCLAF, since this is an exceptionally serious matter involving a breach by Turkey of its obligations under the Customs Union Agreement and the illegal export to the EU of textile products originating from third countries which are passed off as 'Turkish'?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to his Oral Question H-317/97 during question time in the May 1997 sitting of Parliament in which the Commission pointed out that a Community team had gone to Turkey in October 1996 to ascertain that the functioning of Turkish free zones complies with that country's obligations under the customs union. At the time the team inspected the Istanbul and Mersin free zones, in which it found no failure to comply with the rules of the customs union. Since it was a monitoring mission, the unit responsible for the coordination of fraud prevention was not involved.

The Turkish authorities, moreover, told the Commission that they wished to be informed of any case of fraud that might be uncovered by the Community. The Commission reserves the right to raise such cases with Turkey, should duly substantiated complaints be put to it. Specifically, it is prepared to consider or examine any hard facts relating to fraud which may be brought to its attention. In any event, the Community and Turkey agreed as part of the recommendations adopted by the Community-Turkey Association Committee on 24 April this year to keep a constant watch on this matter in order to prevent any evasion of the rules of the customs union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1943/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Church aided schools

Whilst church-aided schools exist throughout the EU, there is some concern over the right of some groups to run seemingly public establishments that are in reality catering for a few.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Do the Articles of the EU Treaty allow for the exclusion of tax payers from facilities they have contributed to (other than those related to defence and national security)?

2. Does the EU Treaty ensure the openness of facilities to those who pay for them?

3. Should entry to establishments be restricted (legally) and if so, could the Commission please specify the ground on which exclusions should be based?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (30 June 1997)

As provided by Article 126 of the EC Treaty, Member States have the exclusive responsibility for the content of teaching and for the organisation of educational systems. Church-aided schools or other private schools exist in various Member States. Their funding and the modalities of access to these schools are provided by the authorities according to national provisions and legislation. The Commission does not have any competence in this area.