ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0582/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDN) to the Commission (11 March 1996)

Subject: Directives on tendering

Will the Commission propose an increase in the ceiling laid down in directives on tendering so as to avoid problems such as those discussed in Erhvervs-Bladet on Monday, 26 February 1996?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 April 1996)

The Commission does not envisage any general increase in the thresholds above which the public procurement directives (92/50/EEC ((OJ L 209, 24.7.1992. )), 93/36/EEC, 93/37/EEC, 93/38/EEC ((OJ L 199, 9.8.1993. ))) are applicable, nor can it do so unilaterally without breaching the international obligations ensuing from the recently adopted government procurement agreement (GPA), which entered into force on 1 January 1996. Changes to the thresholds, which would also affect the relations with third countries having signed the GPA, would, in fact, require renegotiating the GPA, the agreement on which was reached only with some difficulty. It is therefore not appropriate to restart negotiations at present.

Due to the exchange rates and with the exception of the threshold applicable to certain services contracts awarded by central government bodies, the thresholds applicable until 31 December 1997 to contracts subject to the GPA are, however, slightly higher than the thresholds envisaged in the current public procurement directives. In its proposals to amend the directives in order to take the GPA into account ((COM(95) 107 final - OJ C 138, 3.6.1995. )) the Commission has proposed to align the thresholds applicable within the Community with those applicable under the GPA.

As regards the problems mentioned in the newspaper article to which the Honourable Member refers, it should be stressed that the difficulties of preparing an award procedure pursuant to the public procurement directives are likely to decrease as contracting authorities become used to the procedure. It should also not be forgotten that the conclusion of any contract requires a certain amount of preparation, whether or not it is subject to the directives, and that the effects of any increase in the thresholds would be potentially detrimental to many companies, not least small and medium sized enterprises.

Finally, the opportunities for Community companies resulting from the GPA should be taken into account, as it has been estimated that the new agreement, all in all, represents approximately ten times the coverage of the initial agreement of 1979 and that the value of the procurements covered by the GPA will be of the order of 350 000 MECU each year.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0634/96 by Luigi Moretti (ELDR) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Relocation of industrial undertakings as a result of Community incentives

As a result of incentives provided by the Community's structural funds, industries with production plants in Italy are planning to relocate and invest in Spain and other countries, as they are attracted by lower production costs and wages.

Is the Commission aware of this disturbing and steadily increasing trend towards deindustrialization which is affecting many northern Italian provinces?

Is the Commission aware of the impending closure of the Kraft Jacobs Suchard Italia plant in Zingonia (in the province of Bergamo) and its transfer to Spain?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent such Community funds from being misused?

Does the Commission not agree that such practices are based on principles which clearly contradict the principles set out in the rules governing financial assistance under the structural funds and in the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment?

Answer given by Ms Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1996)

The phenomenon of industrial relocation must be seen in the context of production and market globalization. The production and wage costs mentioned by the Honourable Member are only two of the many factors which determine the location of a production unit.

In the case of Kraft Jacobs Suchard referred to by the Honourable Member, and in the light of information received by the Commission, account should also be taken of the fact that the company is rationalizing its operations under its plan to merge the group's activities. The company is concentrating its activities at a small number of production sites and transferring activities both within Italy and to other Member States in an attempt to improve competitiveness.

The Commission does not share the Honourable Member's view that structural fund incentives are likely to encourage such transfers. Firstly, they are not confined to areas receiving structural fund assistance, and, secondly, structural funds play a secondary role, contributing to the financing of aid schemes already in force in eligible regions in the host Member State after being approved by the Commission under its competition policy.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-86/96 by Mr Wolf on the same subject during question time at Parliament's part-session in February. ((European Parliament debate (February 1996). ))
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Harmonization of education

With regard to Law No. 454 of 3 November 1992 on ratification of Articles 123 to 128 of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union (on education, social policy, vocational training and culture) which reiterate the need for harmonization of the European dimension of education, does the Commission not consider that the differences in evaluating the same service provided by teachers in duly recognized schools (equivalence recognized by Article 33 of the Italian Constitution as regards payment of contributions, the amount and duration of payments and entitlement to participate in the same class of competition) compared with teachers in state schools, for the purposes of competitions for teaching posts in all categories of school, are contrary to this principle of harmonization?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)

Article 126 of the EC treaty states that 'The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity'.

However, the problem raised by the Honourable Member, which concerns discrimination at national level between teachers providing the same service, does not fall within the area of Community competence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Teleshopping

Teleshopping services are currently being liberalized in two different ways. On the one hand, there are no more time limits on channels which deal exclusively with such services; on the other, the maximum length of teleshopping broadcasting slots on other services is being increased from one hour to three hours a day.

While the Commission is to be commended for tackling the specific subject of teleshopping and the problem must be seen primarily in connection with distance contracts, does it not consider that this marketing technique must, by its very nature, be subject to a set of strict rules in the broadcasting sector, which the Commission should lay down as from now?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1995)

In its proposal ((OJ C 185, 19.7.1995. )) for the revision of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, ((OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. )) the Commission proposed a change in the rules applicable to teleshopping to take account of developments in television broadcasting.

The Commission proposed that services not exclusively devoted to teleshopping be allowed to broadcast up to three hours of teleshopping programmes per day, compared with the one-hour limit laid down by the existing Directive. Services devoted exclusively to teleshopping would be subject to no quantitative restrictions.

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that the general interest be given due consideration in teleshopping programmes. It has therefore proposed that the consumer protection rules laid down in Articles 12 to 16 of Directive 89/552/EEC be extended to teleshopping, without prejudice to the application of other Community instruments.

In its legislative resolution adopted at first reading on 14 February 1996, Parliament adopted a number of amendments on teleshopping designed to guarantee even higher standards of consumer protection. ((OJ C 65, 4.3.1996. )) The Commission has welcomed some of these amendments, in particular those concerning the form and content of teleshopping programmes, and will give them full consideration in drawing up its amended proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/96 by Aline Pailler (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 April 1996)

Subject: Rights of migrants and their families

In its Communication of 23 February 1994 on immigration and asylum policies (COM(94)23 final) the Commission states that the ratification by the Member States of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 18 December 1990, would guarantee that the rights granted to migrants and their families resident in the Community meet the highest international standards.

Can the Commission say which Member States have ratified this Convention? Is it prepared to take steps to encourage all the Member States to ratify the Convention and submit proposals for improving the protection of the social, economic, cultural and political rights of migrants and their families in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)

The United Nations Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families has not been ratified by the Member States of the Community.

In its medium term social action programme 1995-1997 ((COM(95) 134 final. )) the Commission declared that it will encourage Member States to ratify the United Nations Convention in order to improve the position of migrant workers and their families resident in the Community and ensure that the rights accorded to them correspond to international standards.

The Commission is proceeding with the preparatory work, including the drafting of a report on the difficulties and possibilities of ratification by the Member States and the added value of ratification of this Convention in comparison with other international instruments adopted by the International Labour office and the Council of Europe.

The Commission will continue to take forward the actions to strengthen integration policies for the benefit of immigrants set out in its communication on immigration and asylum policies of 23 February 1994, including the promotion of exchange of information and experience with governments and non governmental organizations and the granting of subsidies to projects for integration.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0893/96 by Daniel Féret (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1996)

Subject: Recognition by the European Union of qualifications in cosmetic surgery

Despite the growing demand in the ill-defined area of cosmetic surgery the laws governing the profession within the European Union differ significantly, which often leads to abuse or treatment by unqualified practitioners, thus putting patients at risk.

The EU should therefore recognize cosmetic surgery as a medical specialism so as to enable suitably qualified doctors to establish themselves freely anywhere within the EU and to ensure that the relevant medical qualification, once acquired, is legally protected.

Does the Commission not think that there should be appropriate initiatives (with due respect for the subsidiarity principle) in the form of a Council recommendation and could it not submit a proposal right away with a view to securing recognition of a cosmetic surgery qualification within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)

Council Directive 93/16/EEC to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications ((OJ No L 165, 7.7.93. )) already provides for the recognition of training as specialist in cosmetic surgery. In accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the Directive, cosmetic surgery is automatically recognized between all Member States except Germany. In the fourteen Member States where it leads to the award of an automatically recognized qualification, the training must satisfy minimum conditions as laid down in the Directive, and in particular in Articles 24 and 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (29 February 1996)

Subject: New Commission premises in Luxembourg

There are reports in the press that the Commission is conducting negotiations with the German company Hochtief with a view to renting an office block, to be used as an annex to the Jean Monnet Building, which the company is now in the process of erecting in Luxembourg. The complex is 3 km away from the Commission's current premises and has 35 000 m2 of available office space situated on the upper floors of a huge shopping centre.

1. Is it true that the Commission has promised to pay rent for 25 years, entailing a total cost of some LF 8 bn, and will not become the owner of the building?

2. Does it not have the alternative possibility of acquiring a whole building for its exclusive use, adjacent to its current premises, for which the overall expenditure in a 15-year time-span would be approximately LF 5 bn, saving LF 6 bn compared with the first plan (LF 3 bn less than the rent set by Hochtief, plus ownership of the building)?

3. Is it true that this second option has been rejected and, if so, for what reasons and a decision taken instead to conclude a lease contract with Hochtief, already under investigation for other shady deals?

4. What calculations of financial advantages are inducing the Commission to forgo a saving of LF 6 bn?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen (12 April 1996)

1. The Commission has not given any commitment along the lines referred to by the Honourable Member.

2. The Commission has always been interested in the possibility of acquiring a building on a site adjacent to its current premises. An unsolicited offer to that effect was made to it recently.

3. This proposal has not been rejected. However, the builder has not yet confirmed the availability of the site nor the capacity of the proposed building. The builder will have to be selected in accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Directive 93/37/EEC ((OJ No L 199, 9.8.1993. )) relating to public works contracts.

4. In any case, before committing itself, the Commission always carries out a cost/effectiveness analysis. At this stage, it cannot comment on this point.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0669/96 by Gijs de Vries (ELDR) to the Council (18 March 1996)

Subject: Arms embargoes

1. Against which countries did the Council instigate an arms embargo in the years 1985 through 1995? How long did each of these remain in force? 2. In which cases did serious violation of human rights cause the embargo to be imposed?

3. Which decisions of the United Nations Security Council provided the basis for an EC arms embargo?

4. What legal basis did the Council select for each of its decision?

Reply (25 June 1996)

1. The Honourable Member will find attached a list of arms embargoes adopted within the European Union since 1985. The list also gives the date when each embargo was imposed and, where appropriate, the date when it was lifted.

2. The decisions to impose embargoes on China, Burma, Zaire, Sudan and Nigeria were directly inspired by concern over serious human rights violations.

3. Security Council Resolutions imposing arms embargoes are directly applicable to the Member States of the Union and do not require a Council Decision. Cosequently, all the decisions on the annexed list are decisions taken autonomously by the Council, and in some cases preceded similar decisions by the United Nations Security Council.

4. Before the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, all decisions relating to arms embargoes were taken on the basis of the provisions governing European political cooperation. Since then, such decisions have been taken on the basis of the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article J.2 thereof. ANNEX List of arms embargoes adopted within the European Union since 1985

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1996)

Subject: Derogations for airport services

One very important and delicate issue regarding the proposal for a Council Directive on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports (COM(94)0590 ((OJ C 142, 8.6.1995, p. 7. )) is that of derogations.

Does the Commission agree that the derogation criteria should be determined in a precise and legally binding manner to ensure that the Member States are genuinely in a position to decide about derogations? Should provision not also be made to allow preliminary consultations to take place between the Commission and the Member States concerned before initiating proceedings before the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1996)

The proposed directive concerning access to the groundhandling market at Community airports will allow exemptions only in the case of exceptional problems of capacity and space at a given airport. Such exemptions apply only where it is impossible for the airport to allow the presence of a new entrant. In practice, the examination by the Commission of the decision of the Member State is likely to result in informal meetings between the Commission and the civil aviation administration of the Member State concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0303/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (7 February 1996)

Subject: Review of the EU-OCT association agreement

Decision 91/482/EEC ((OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1. )) on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community provided for a mid-term review on 1 March 1995.

1. Can the Commission say why this mid-term review has not yet been undertaken and when it will be submitting its proposals in this respect?

2. Will the Commission be ensuring that none of the proposals submitted adversely affects the trade arrangements, causes market disturbances or is detrimental to investments already effected?

3. Does the Commission intend to include the drug problem and money-laundering in its deliberations, as requested at the third EU-OCT partnership meeting?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (28 February 1996)

1. The mid-term review of Council Decision 91/482/EEC could not be approved by March 1995, as foreseen in Article 240 ¶ 3 of the Decision, in the absence of:

- a decision on European development fund (EDF) and European investment bank (EIB) financial assistance; which was only decided at the end of June 1995 by the European Council and

- the final text of the ACP/EC mid-term review which was only signed at Mauritius at the beginning of November 1995.

The Commission's proposal ((COM(95) 739 final. )) has now been forwarded to Parliament and Council.

2. The position of the Commission on this item is included in its proposal.

3. The Commission is well aware that the fight against money laundering and drug trafficking was underlined as a major concern by the seven British and Dutch Caribbean overseas countries and territories (OCTs) during the third yearly partnership meeting held at Montserrat at the end of November 1995.

In its report, presently being prepared following a request made at the Madrid European Council in December 1995, concerning the fight against drugs in the Latin American and Caribbean regions, the Commission intends to include these OCTs in the list of the countries concerned by this action.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0674/96 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission (15 March 1996)

Subject: Insertion of a clause in the EU-Slovenia association agreement on closing the Krsko nuclear power station

Can the Commission confirm the recent studies carried out by Greenpeace pointing to the extreme danger posed by the Krsko nuclear power station which is situated in the part of Slovenia most prone to earthquakes - just over 100 km from Trieste - where more than a hundred earthquakes were recorded between 1628 and 1990?

Does the Commission not consider it essential to insert a clause in the EU-Slovenia association agreement on closing the Krsko nuclear power station in view, also, of the power station's intrinsic obsolescence?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (23 May 1996)

The Commission is able to provide the following information concerning the Krsko nuclear power station in Slovenia:

- Slovenia signed the Convention on Nuclear Safety in 1994 and is cooperating actively with the International Atomic Energy Agency;- the IAEA carries out regular inspections (63 routine inspections and 11 quality system inspections) in 1994;- an agreement with Austria on the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological accident was signed in 1994 and discussions on similar agreements have been held with the nuclear safety authorities of the neighbouring countries.

The Honourable Member is asked to note that, in the light of concerns over nuclear safety, a specific statement has been added to the European agreement negotiated with Slovenia. This is a joint statement concerning Article 81, indicating that the two parties agree to determine the methods and means necessary for the establishment of an efficient system for the exchange of information in the case of a radiological emergency.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 June 1996)

Subject: Progress with sub-programme 1, Attica, Measure 4 of the 2nd CSF: 'Health and Welfare'

Measure 1.4 of the regional operational programme for Attica provides for funding of health and welfare facilities, primarily in Western Attica. The breakdown of funding was ECU 15 500 000 for 1994 and ECU 15 190 000 for 1995.

1. What specific projects have been included in 1.4? Can the Commission provide details of the progress made?

2. What was the take-up rate for 1994 and 1995?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1479/96, E-1480/96, E-1481/96, E-1482/96, E-1483/96, E-1484/96, E-1485/96 and E-1486/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/96 by Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)

Subject: Customs declarations on postage parcels

Why can the British postal authorities continue to require that all parcels posted between the United Kingdom and Ireland bear completed customs declarations?

Is this practice consistent with European law?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1996)

Customs declarations are not required on parcels between the United Kingdom and Ireland, or elsewhere in the Community.

The Honourable Member may be referring to a form called 'despatch pack PFU5' which is required by Parcelforce international, a branch of the British post office group, firstly to allow it to inform postal partners in advance about certain characteristics of parcels in order to facilitate their shipment and delivery and secondly because aviation security regulations require a content description.