ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B5-321: Operations relating to cooperatives

With reference to the financial year 1995 and budget heading B5-321: Operations relating to cooperatives,

1. can the Commission say whether subsidies were granted to associations, trade unions or employers' bodies?

2. If they were, can the Commission provide a breakdown of the exact amount of the subsidy for each association, trade union, body and activity?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-305: Sport in Europe

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading B3-305: Sport in Europe?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B5-722: Information society

With reference to the financial year 1995 and budget heading B5-722: Information society,

1. can the Commission say whether subsidies were granted to private or public bodies?

2. If they were, can the Commission provide a breakdown of the exact amount of the subsidy for each body and for each activity?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3633/96 by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission (3 January 1997)

Subject: Budget heading B3-4104: Measures for the elderly and families

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the figures, for each association and activity subsidised, for the subsidies granted in the financial year 1995, under budget heading B3-4104: Measures for the elderly and families?

Supplementary joint answer to Written Questions E-3598/96, E-3600/96, E-3603/96, E-3604/96, E-3605/96, E-3606/96, E-3607/96, E-3608/96, E-3609/96, E-3610/96, E-3611/96, E-3612/96, E-3613/96, E-3614/96, E-3615/96, E-3616/96, E-3617/96, E-3618/96, E-3620/96, E-3621/96, E-3622/96, E-3623/96, E-3624/96, E-3625/96, E-3627/96, E-3629/96, E-3630/96, E-3631/96, E-3632/96, E-3633/96, E-3634/96, E-3635/96, E-3636/96, E-3637/96, E-3638/96, E-3641/96, E-3642/96 and E-3644/96 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 14 February 1997 ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997. )), 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2699/96 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (15 October 1996)

Subject: National interpretation of EU rules on tendering

The Danish Finance Ministry's circular on tendering and invitations to tender (No 42 of 1 March 1994) makes it possible for a government authority calling for tenders to take part in an EU tendering procedure itself by drawing up what is known as a 'control bid', i.e. its own tender. A rule in the aforementioned circular also allows the government authority to increase private-sector tenderers' bids by automatically adding to them an amount corresponding to the costs it would incur, e.g. in retraining staff and paying wages to civil servants with no work to do, if it lost the function put out to tender and which it used to perform.

Does the Commission not consider that, by automatically increasing private-sector bids, this practice constitutes discrimination in favour of the public sector?

Will it intervene to halt this practice in Denmark?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (1 July 1997)

Further to its answer of 29 November 1996 ((OJ C 60, 26.2.1997. )), the Commission is able to provide the following additional information.

The Commission has now finalized its examination of the compatibility with the Community rules on public procurement of the provisions of the ministry of Finance's circular No 42 of 1 March 1994 on tendering and out-sourcing of state operational tasks and works.

This examination shows the circular simply provides a methodology allowing contracting authorities to decide on an objective basis when to cancel an award procedure rather than a series of provisions applicable to the comparison of tenders. In this perspective, the circular should be seen as dealing with a subject matter which is not regulated by the directives and therefore legitimate unless contrary to the general provisions and principles of the Treaty.

The circular is not contrary to any general provisions of the Treaty (in particular Articles 30, 52 and 59 et seq.). As regards in particular the principle of equal treatment, the system introduced by the circular does not seem to lead to any inequality of treatment of any of the (external) tenderers and is therefore not contrary to that principle.

It should, however, be stressed that the Commission is of the view that the award procedure is subject to the directives from the very beginning and this remains so even if it does not result in a contract being concluded with an external bidder. This means that the publication of a tender notice and the application of all the provisions of the directive are obligatory as soon as the normal conditions (value above the relevant threshold, directives applicable both ratione materiae and ratione personae) are met.

As the circular is in conformity with Community law, no further action will be taken in the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (22 January 1997)

Subject: Community rice and food aid

At present there is a record quantity of Community rice and the GATT agreements have restricted the quantity exportable with a subsidy in the form of a refund.

In view of the new legislation concerning the administration of humanitarian aid, will the Commission, when assessing the cost of these supplies, also consider the possible cost of using intervention for the relevant quantity of rice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1997)

The Commission does not have sufficient details of the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised and is not therefore in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0925/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The EDF and the fisheries agreement with Gambia

Can the Commission say what appropriations were paid to Gambia under the EDF in 1995 and 1996 to finance the development of the national fisheries sector, and can it list the specific products for which this aid was used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0923/97, E-0924/97, E-0925/97, E-0926/97, E-0927/97, E-0928/97, E-0929/97, E-0930/97, E-0931/97, E-0932/97, E-0933/97 and E-0934/97 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

In reply to questions on allocations and specific projects to develop the fisheries sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, a document listing fisheries projects in developing countries that have received EC aid has been sent to the Honourable Member and lodged with Parliament's General Secretariat.

The document comprises tables giving detailed information including the types of project, their objectives, the recipients and the Community contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1500/97 by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission (30 April 1997)

Subject: Aid programmes

Will the Commission state what proportion of the principal aid programmes goes on paying fees for the drawing up of application dossiers, management dossiers during implementation and validation dossiers?

What is the general profile of the physical or moral persons who receive such fees?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (28 May 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-0547/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (21 February 1997)

Subject: Delay in the construction of the Palestinian port on the coast of the Gaza Strip

Can the Commission ask the Israeli Government for clarification of the persistent delay in the construction of a port on the coast of Gaza, despite the fact that the funds for the construction of that port are available from European Union Member State funds (especially the Netherlands)?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (14 March 1997)

The issue of a seaport at Gaza figures at the top of the agenda of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian liberation organization. A special joint working group on Gaza port has been established between Israelis and Palestinians. The Commission believes every effort is being made by the two parties to overcome the delay to which the Honourable Member refers.

Although, strictly speaking, these discussions are proceeding on a bilateral basis, the Union special envoy to the Middle East process has repeatedly underlined the importance which the Union attaches to the port. Indeed, he and his team are involved in efforts to reach agreement on this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/97 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (25 February 1997)

Subject: Discontinuation of project to supply Athens with water from the River Evinos

Work on the Evinos dam - a project that would solve Athens' water supply problem - has reportedly been stopped a few months before completion. The contractor asked for the work to be stopped because of disagreements with the Ministry of Regional Planning and Public Works over technical aspects of the project and the cost.

The Cohesion Fund, which is financing the work, appears to be aware of developments and to have approved the termination of the contract.

1. Can the Commission specify the cause of the disagreements which led to the abandonment of the work, and

2. what measures will the Commission pursue, in cooperation with the government, to complete the project?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

The Commission was informed by the Greek authorities of the interruption of construction work on the Evinos dam but never gave its agreement.

Meanwhile, the Greek authorities have informed the Commission of a ministerial decision authorising continuation of the project with the existing contractor and declaring the stoppage of work null and void.

The Commission will monitor the project very closely to ensure that it is completed under the most favourable contractual and technical conditions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0922/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Vaccine against meningitis and BSE

Can the Commission say whether it is true that the recent unexplained withdrawal from the Greek and Italian market of a particular make of vaccine against meningitis is linked to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in that prions had been detected in the vaccine concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1997)

The Italian withdrawal of authorization to market the vaccines the Honourable Member refers to is not linked to any detection of prions (the agents thought to be responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy - BSE). The Italian authorities have informed the Commission that the sole reason for the withdrawal was the presence of Type I and II material of bovine origin (according to the tissue classification used by the World Health Organization to indicate potential infectiosity).

Although this material came from areas claimed to be BSE-free (the United States), the Italian authorities have decided to work on the precautionary principle not of preventive measures based on the notion of 'clear areas' but of an outright ban on 'high-risk' bovine material, regardless of origin, in the manufacture of medicinal products.

The Commission is unaware of similar vaccine withdrawals in Greece.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1049/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Manuela Frutos Gama (PSE) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: COM in tobacco

With regard to the new COM in tobacco, what is the point of buying quotas from tobacco growers in order to remove them from the production total when this would have a serious social and environmental impact on underdeveloped regions in southern Europe?

Is the Commission aware that the cutback in tobacco production cannot be compensated for by other crops?

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

The Commission is aware of the need to provide aid for European tobacco producers, who are very often in the poorest regions of the Community. The Commission's planned amendment of the quota system is not intended to end tobacco production in producer regions or to withdraw production quotas from producers against their will.

The purpose of the planned amendment, which involves facilitating transfers between varieties and allowing the transfer of quotas between traditional producers, is rather to ensure a better match between tobacco production and market requirements. The system for the purchase of quotas should therefore be regarded as a 'safety net' for producers wishing to leave the sector who cannot find a buyer for their quotas.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/97 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission (4 March 1997)

Subject: Air transport

Given that one of the real barriers to competition in air transport is the lack of slots available to new market entrants and indeed due to historical rights held by some carriers on routes:

1. What progress is the Commission making towards amending Council Regulation (EEC) 95/93 ((OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.)) on slot allocation at Community airports?

2. What is the Commission's present view on monetized slot trading?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)

The Commission requested consultants to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the functioning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93. This was discussed in consultations with experts from Member States and from the industry. On the basis of the information thus obtained, the Commission is presently preparing proposals for the Council to amend the Regulation.

One of the options being considered is monetary slot trading between airlines. Introduction of such a mechanism has a number of implications which the Commission is currently assessing. A proposal for the revision of the Regulation will be presented to the Council as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0498/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Definition, adoption and monitoring of Community KONVER initiative

Can the Commission provide information on the level of participation of local authorities and the two sides of industry in the definition, adoption and monitoring of the KONVER initiative in the various Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0497/97, E-0498/97, E-0499/97 and E-0500/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

Participation of the various local authorities and other partners in the definition and monitoring of assistance under the Community Initiatives is governed, like any other operational programme, by Article 4 of the basic Regulation on the Structural Funds ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). Each Member State designates the authorities and other partners which are to participate in the partnership involved in structural assistance in accordance with current practice in each Member State.

In the interests of efficiency, consistency and optimization of the technical means available, the Community Initiatives are generally monitored by the same Monitoring Committees responsible for monitoringthe various operational programmes and single programming documents.

The wide range of situations and practices and the very complexity of the assistance procedures make it difficult to carry out a detailed quantitative analysis for each Member State of actual participation by local authorities and social partners in the definition and approval of each operational programme or Community Initiative or of their participation in the Monitoring Committees. The information on this subject available to the Commission is presented in the 6th and 7th annual reports, which Parliament has received.

The Commission believes that there has been real progress in the application of the principle of partnership for these Community Initiatives, as for all other structural assistance. It recognizes, however, that the quality of implementation varies from one Member State to another.

The report on economic and social cohesion recently adopted by the Commission stresses that partnership will have to be strengthened in the future, but it also proposes that the current assistance procedures be simplified so as to ensure that partnership is really made possible and effective.

The Commission is currently promoting territorial employment pacts as a means of trying out new forms of partnership, particularly at local level, involving the economic and social partners.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0433/97 by Ilona Graenitz (PSE) to the Commission (19 February 1997)

Subject: Nuclear power stations

1. Will the Commission be publishing the report of the EBRD's independent panel on the completion of the Ukrainian nuclear power stations Rovno 4 and Khmelnitsky 2?

2. Will the Commission comply with the recommendations of this report?

3. How can the Commission explain that ECU 30 million have already been invested in these projects without the questions of economic viability and nuclear safety having been settled beforehand?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

1. The report prepared by the panel of independent experts on the least cost study concerning the completion of the two VVER-1000 reactors Rovno 4 and Khmelnitsky 2 has been made available to the Parliament and to the public.

2. The G7 is evaluating the report. The Commission will inform the Parliament about the results of this work. The report has been prepared at the instigation of the European bank for reconstruction and development (EBRD) for use in its internal loan approval procedure.

3. The European Council at Corfu and the G-7 summit at Naples agreed to put to Ukraine a comprehensive nuclear safety and energy action plan for the closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (CNPP). This plan stipulated that the closure of Chernobyl would be accompanied by the early completion of three new reactors to adequate safety standards, by comprehensive reforms in the energy sector, and increased energy conservation on the use of other energy sources. In this context, the European Council made financial commitments to support the implementation of the action plan (100 mecu from Tacis, up to 400 mecu as Euratom loans).

On this basis, it was decided to use part of the Community's Tacis grant to ensure that a high safety level will be achieved and to provide assistance for the preparation of the loan application to Euratom and to the EBRD. An amount of 30 mecu has been committed to that end over three years (1994-1996).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Viability of the proposal on protection of workers against chemical agents

The 'specific' proposal on protection of workers against exposure to chemical agents has been held up since 1994. The new proposal, put forward during the Irish Presidency, although it lays down minimum standards and has been debated by the Social Affairs Council, has not obtained a broad enough consensus.

When is it expected to be finally adopted? Will the new compromise text lay down mandatory indicative limit values?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1997)

The Commission can give no estimation of the exact date of the adoption of its proposal on chemical agents ((COM(94) 230. )).

However the Commission is pleased that discussions are taking place in Council and it is possible that a common position could be reached in the near future.

The Commission will do its utmost to ensure that its proposal for two types of limit values will be maintained.