ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2220/97 by Gérard Caudron (PSE) to the Commission (30 June 1997)

Subject: Distribution of projects supported under the MEDA programme

We are all aware of the great importance of this programme in the economic development of the Mediterranean, which is a key factor in promoting peace in the region.

We therefore cannot but welcome the existence of the programme and its renewal, even if, in some respects, the funding available may seem inadequate for the challenges to be met.

It should be noted that budget line B7-705 is used to support individual projects, which undoubtedly serves to increase the number of projects supported, and maximizes the number of participating organizations, but which also causes a degree of frustration for non-governmental organizations, since this rule means that they are unable to pursue their activities on a long-term basis.

Can the Commission envisage earmarking a substantial portion of the MEDA budget for organizations with a good track record and sound knowledge of the field?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (29 July 1997)

In 1996 62 projects received Community funding under the MEDA-Democracy programme. The countries concerned were Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Israel (in particular relations between them), Cyprus and Turkey. With so many countries involved, the projects funded under the programme are bound to be diverse.

Priority should indeed go to projects presented by bodies with a proven track record in promoting democracy and human rights in the southern and eastern Mediterranean. It therefore makes sense for a body to continue receiving Community funding as long as evaluation of the projects warrants it.

On the other hand, budget article B7-705 is also intended to encourage as many organisations as possible to take part, so helping develop civil society in the Mediterranean non-member countries.

When executing the MEDA programme, the Commission tries to maintain a balance between these two objectives.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1929/97 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Enlargement of the European Union

Is it consistent with the Treaty on European Union signed by the 15 Member States to put the objective of enlargement of the European Union ahead of the goal of achieving economic and social cohesion in the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)

The strengthening of economic and social cohesion appears among the objectives that the Community under Article 2 of the EC Treaty and the title XIV of this same treaty in its Articles 130 A with E pursues.

In addition, the Treaty on European Union in its Article O stipulates that 'Any European state can ask to become member of the Union ... . The conditions of the admission and adaptations that this admission involves with regard to the treaties on which the Union is based are the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant state ...'.

As at the time of the last enlargement (with Austria, Sweden and Finland in 1995), the result is that the principle of strengthening of economic and social cohesion stipulated in Article 2, as well as its methods established in Articles 130 A with E will have to be implemented in the future countries which would adhere to the Union, according to the methods to be agreed in the Treaties of Accession.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2049/97 by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission (13 June 1997)

Subject: Quality of Belgian development aid

Is the Commission aware that a special committee has been set up by the Belgian parliament to look into the way development aid is spent by, or through the offices of, the development aid authority?

If so, is it also aware that the supervisory body is currently looking into allegations of fraud involving development aid concerning 24 projects and programmes? These include:

- Malawi Railways Ltd.: supply of five shunter engines with spare parts;

- a desalination plant in Mindelo (Cape Verde);

- contracts for the treatment, insurance and transport of goods to developing countries;

- supply of machine tools to Indonesia (PT-IMI in Cilegon);

- 'Médecins sans frontières' (NGO);

- 'SOS-FAIM' (NGO);

- supply and installation by Modulmed of a modular 140-bed hospital in Natitingou (Benin);

- supply of medical equipment by Modulmed to Kenya.

Can the Commission give an assurance that it has not been involved - financially or otherwise, directly or indirectly - in planning or carrying out any of these projects and programmes?

If not, in what projects or programmes has the Commission been involved as part of its development policy?

In this case, is the Commission prepared to forward a detailed list of projects in which the Commission has been or is involved, together with the financial contribution for each project?

In the light of Article 130u and 130x, and in particular Article 1340x(2), has the Commission been informed of problems in connection with these projects by either the Belgian authorities or the national authorities of the countries in question or by its local representatives?

If so, by whom, what action has it taken and with what result?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (6 August 1997)

The Commission is aware of the investigation currently being conducted in Belgium into the functioning of the development aid authority (AGCD). That investigation concerns the internal functioning of Belgian development cooperation and the Commission has not been supplied with any details. Nor has the Commission received any explicit requests for information from the Belgian authorities and it is, accordingly, at this stage able to answer only the questions of a general nature put by the Honourable Member.

As far as specific aid operations are concerned, the Commission informs the Member States of all Community aid operations at the various stages of preparing and implementing programmes. It informs the Member States, inter alia, of all operations cofinanced with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in a detailed annual report which includes Community operations jointly financed with the Médecins sans frontières (MSF) and SOS-FAIM organisations referred to by the Honourable Member. The Belgian authorities are, accordingly, able to make use of this information in the course of their investigation and, where necessary, request more detailed information regarding an aid operation of more specific interest.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1530/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (5 May 1997)

Subject: Information on EC assistance granted to the Rhineland-Palatinate from January to December 1994

In what amounts and for what measures did the Rhineland-Palatinate 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-1530/97, E-1531/97 and E-1532/97 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-1528/97 ((OJ C 60, 25.2.1998, p. 24. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2403/97 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)

Subject: Old people's homes

1. Does the European Union provide aid for setting up or managing residential accommodation for the elderly (old people's homes or sheltered housing)?

2. If so, under what programmes?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1997)

Budget heading B3-4103 (support programme for the elderly), which is blocked at present, does not make provision for this type of expenditure.

Moreover, the Structural Funds are not specifically earmarked for financing such projects.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2557/97 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission (24 July 1997)

Subject: The European Union's involvement in the International Science and Technology Centre (ISTC) in Moscow

The European staff of the ISTC in Moscow are currently under contract to the European Association for Cooperation (EAC). They include the Executive Director and other managers. The EAC has informed the staff that it is unable to extend their contracts beyond 1997. There are said to be budgetary reasons for this. The European staff have, however, been appointed by the Governing Board until February 1999, although their payment is not guaranteed.

How does the Commission intend to ensure the European Union's continued involvement in the ISTC in the future? Who is to become the financial guarantor of the contracts with the European officials employed at the ISTC?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (12 September 1997)

The Commission has five persons in all on secondment to the International Science and Technology Centre (ISTC), Moscow, including its Executive Director. They are under contract to the European Association for Cooperation (EAC), which has announced that it is to cease operations on 31 December.

The Executive Director was appointed by the ISTC's Governing Board for two years ending in February 1999. The EAC, however, agreed to give contractual cover only until 31 December 1997. Fresh contractual cover will therefore have to be provided, as it will for others whose contracts expire in the period 31 December 1997 to 30 November 1998.

Ways are currently being devised of concluding contracts with the people in question for the period after 31 December. The cost of those contracts has been, and will continue to be, paid from the TACIS programme budget.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1944/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (4 June 1997)

Subject: Driftnet fishing in the Mediterranean

Can the Commission confirm that there is budgetary provision for the EU's fisheries monitoring vessel to operate during 1997 and if this is not the case, how the Commission intends to ensure that the recent agreement to phase out driftnets in the Italian fleet is properly implemented?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (29 July 1997)

In anticipation of the opening of the driftnet fishing season, the Commission and the Member States concerned have agreed upon a common coordinated control programme in 1997 in the Mediterranean Sea to monitor vessel compliance with Community rules and in particular the length of driftnets utilised by fleets.

The main elements of the control programme are:

- coordinated deployment of control resources (aerial surveillance, patrol vessels) by the Member States concerned - Greece, Spain, France and Italy,

- exchange of national fisheries inspectors which will be deployed on patrol vessels provided by different Member States,

- extensive sea patrols and port inspection,

- zero tolerance on non-compliance with Community rules,

- close monitoring of national control programmes by the Commission's fisheries inspectorate.

The adoption of a common control programme which envisages close co-operation and co-ordination between Member States and facilitates the exchange and deployment of national inspectors marks a new departure for the monitoring of this fishery. The programme has been agreed in order to overcome control deficiencies noted in the past and to ensure that the fishery is conducted in full compliance with Community rules.

For its part, the Commission will closely monitor the implementation of the control programmes by Member States throughout the season and to that end will deploy its inspectors in ports and on board patrol vessels provided by Member States. In this regard, the Commission and the Member States have agreed on a zero tolerance policy with respect to any incidence of non-compliance by Community fishermen during the 1997 season.

Fishermen engaging in the driftnet fishery will now have the possibility of receiving cessation premiums provided by the Italian national conversion plan. Joining the conversion plan is voluntary, therefore those fisherman wishing to continue driftnetting may do so, provided that Community legislation is respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 604/97 by Alex SMITH to the Council. Smuggling of nuclear materials



Official Journal C 076 , 11/03/1998 P. 0003



WRITTEN QUESTION E-0604/97 by Alex Smith (PSE) to the Council (27 February 1997) Subject: Smuggling of nuclear materials Further to the reply to Written Question E-1957/96 ((OJ C 385, 19.12.1996, p. 67. )) by Mrs Breyer, on 7 November 1996, has the Council anything substantive to add on the matter of nuclear materials smuggling through Germany? Answer (25 September 1997) At this stage the Council has nothing substantive to add to its previous replies on the matter, published in the Official Journals C 112, 17.4.1996, and C 385, 19.12.1996. However, the problem is being constantly monitored by the competent authorities and bodies at the European Union Level, notably the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/97 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (11 June 1997)

Subject: Continued Japanese cooperation in basic brain research

In the middle of April 1997 48 research grants and 160 two-year post-doctoral scholarships were granted for 1997 by the Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP), the Scientific Council of which is chaired by the French Professor Pierre Chambon.

The Board of Trustees chaired by Dr Kozo Iizuka announced that the budget for 1997 would amount to $ 47 million, 80% of which would still be provided by Japan, whilst the United States and the European Union would provide 10% each.

Aid was first granted in 1990 and two assessments (ARA and PREST) were carried out recently. Can the Commission say whether it agrees with the positive scientific evaluation given by these assessments? Furthermore, does the Commission consider that the same level of European participation should be maintained in this non-profit-making organization, which is devoted to international cooperation in basic research into the brain and biological functions?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1997)

The European contribution to the Human frontier science programme (HFSP) is shared among those Member States participating in the world economic summits. The Community and Switzerland are management supporting parties. The Community contributes ECU 800 000, i.e. approximately 2% of the 47 million US dollars budget for 1997.

As foreseen in the statutes of HFSP a scientific evaluation of the programme had been undertaken by eminent scientists, and a general review of the Human frontier science programme carried out jointly by ARA consulting Group Inc. (Canada) and Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology (PREST), University of Manchester (United Kingdom). The results of the review were that this programme has been very successful in supporting scientific transcontinental collaboration at the highest level. The grant scheme has been identified as unique. The recommendations were that for the time being the scientific areas concerning brain research and molecular approaches should be maintained and the programme should continue.

At a meeting in Washington on 20 May 1997 representatives of the funding parties agreed that the programme should continue and that the budget should be increased, in particular, in order to ensure a critical mass of research grants. The next general review of the HFSP will take place in 2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1403/97 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Council (22 April 1997)

Subject: 'Fatwa' pronounced against Salman Rushdie

On the eighth anniversary of the Iranian 'fatwa' pronounced against Salman Rushdie the Khordad-15 Foundation increased reward for his assassination from $2 to 2.5 million dollars.

Given that the Iranian Government has failed to response to the EU's call for a solution to be found to the problem, and in view of the fact that the 'fatwa' contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principle of sovereignty of states is the Council intending to take further action to find a way of cancelling the 'fatwa' pronounced against Mr Rushdie?

Answer (25 September 1997)

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the declaration made on 13 February 1997 by the Presidency on the occasion of the 8th anniversary of the "fatwa¨ against Salman Rushdie.

The Council's views on Iranian behaviour remain unchanged; and although, under the present circumstances, there is no basis for the continuation of the Critical Dialogue with Iran, it will continue to demand that Iran abide by international law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2502/97 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (18 July 1997)

Subject: Fire at the Sellafield nuclear installation, Britain

On June 12 1997 a fire occurred at Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria, Britain, while decommissioning work was being undertaken.

What details, if any, were given to the Commission about this incident?

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

The Commission has been informed by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) that the fire was contained within a booth being used to cut up a stainless steel vessel in a redundant building, that no one was hurt and there was no spread of contamination or release of radioactivity. The fire was dealt with by the site brigade and was reported in the BNFL Sellafield newsletter of 19 June 1997.

The Commission was not informed at the time of the fire but there is no obligation on Member States to do so in events such as the one described.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2260/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (2 July 1997)

Subject: Dangerous preparations

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (COM(96) 347 final - 96/0200 COD) ((OJ C 283, 26.9.1996, p. 1. )).

With regard to environmental risks, will the Commission ensure that the annexes deal only with the technical aspects of the assessments, so as to allow more rapid adjustments to technical progress?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)

The proposal for a Parliament and Council directive on classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations provides for principles of assessment of hazards (physico-chemical effects, health effects and environmental effects) in its Articles 5, 6 and 7 respectively. The technical aspects of the application of the articles of the directive are covered in the annexes.

In the case of environmental effects the application of the conventional method, the application of test results for classification as well as specific risk (R-) and safety advice (S-) phrases for preparations classified as dangerous for the environment are specified in detail by annex III. The system proposed for preparations dangerous for the environment corresponds to the existing system for preparations dangerous to health.

In the case of preparations dangerous to health the conventional method is specified in annex II of the proposal. The necessary specifications for applicability of test results are in annex VI to Directive 67/548/EEC on dangerous substances ((OJ 196, 16.8.1967. )) and R- and S-phrases in Annexes III and IV to Directive 67/548/EEC. All these annexes are adapted to technical progress by the Commission assisted by a committee.

The Commission believes, therefore, that the procedure to adapt the directive to technical progress is equivalent as regards health effects and environmental effects. Furthermore the Commission believes that these annexes deal only with the technical aspects and the committee procedure should be continued for adaptation to technical progress of these annexes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1068/97 by Giulio Fantuzzi (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Rinaldo Bontempi (PSE) to the Council (24 March 1997)

Subject: Dutch opposition to alteration of the arrangements for rice imports from Overseas Countries and Territories

A proposal to amend the arrangements for rice imports from Overseas Countries and Territories was submitted by the Commission, with the support of the Irish Presidency. At present it is proving impossible to approve this proposal because, despite the agreement of the 14 other Member States, the Dutch Government is firmly opposed.

1. Does the Council consider this situation to be acceptable?

2. What action does it intend to take to resolve the problem?

Answer (25 September 1997)

On 16 February 1996, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council Decision amending at mid-term Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Community. In this communication the Commission proposed substantial modifications to the trade arrangements laid down by the Decision but the proposal also covers other areas, such as, in particular, the distribution of the financial resources for the OCT.

The Irish Presidency proposed a compromise on the trade arrangements. The proposal was discussed by the Council (including the General Affairs Council), but failed to obtain the required unanimous consent.

Apart from the mid-term review proposal, the Commission, having noted the need for safeguard measures, which had also been requested by certain Member States, adopted Regulations 21/97 and 764/97, which were replaced by Council Regulations Nos 304/97 and 1036/97 respectively, introducing safeguard measures in respect of rice imports originating in the OCT.

The Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and a rice mill have decided to lodge a request for annulment of the Council Regulations with the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance respectively, and to introduce applications for the adoption of interim measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0769/97 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (10 March 1997)

Subject: Operating appropriations of the European Institutions

With regard to heading B7-3001 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.

Supplementary 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 (19 September 1997)

Further to its answer of 5 May 1997 ((OJ C 21, 22.1.1998, p. 28. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.